Historically, territories that were not even states sent electors and the VP counted them over objections on that basis.Quote:
There was also an alternative slate of electors from Hawaii in the 60s, I think. Trump didn't do anything new or appalling, the pearl-clutching left has themselves all worked up over not all that much, as usual.
Trump Jan 6 sealed indictment delivered
132,417 Views |
1457 Replies |
Last: 13 days ago by will25u
Quote:
There was also an alternative slate of electors from Hawaii in the 60s, I think. Trump didn't do anything new or appalling, the pearl-clutching left has themselves all worked up over not all that much, as usual.
the alternative slate of electors from hawaii was a slate sent from the state of hawaii after a recount. there was no dispute those were the correct electors.
that is not what happened in 2020. no state sent any alternate electors. Trump's plan (allegedly) was for Pence to see these "competing" electors and toss out all electors for those seven states, then award Trump the presidency based on having 232 total electors instead of the required 270.
the reason the Hawaii 1960 case is relevant is becuase it shows precedent for accepting late electors if any state had sent them. none did.
Had not heard that part. Do you remember who said that, besides Pence, I mean.Quote:
that is not what happened in 2020. no state sent any alternate electors. Trump's plan (allegedly) was for Pence to see these "competing" electors and toss out all electors for those seven states, then award Trump the presidency based on having 232 total electors instead of the required 270.
aggiehawg said:Had not heard that part. Do you remember who said that, besides Pence, I mean.Quote:
that is not what happened in 2020. no state sent any alternate electors. Trump's plan (allegedly) was for Pence to see these "competing" electors and toss out all electors for those seven states, then award Trump the presidency based on having 232 total electors instead of the required 270.
It's all over the memos they were writing. E.g. see page 2, point 3 of the below
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066248-eastman-memo
Taking that at face value, is that illegal or just a novel application of existing law?BMX Bandit said:Quote:
There was also an alternative slate of electors from Hawaii in the 60s, I think. Trump didn't do anything new or appalling, the pearl-clutching left has themselves all worked up over not all that much, as usual.
the alternative slate of electors from hawaii was a slate sent from the state of hawaii after a recount. there was no dispute those were the correct electors.
that is not what happened in 2020. no state sent any alternate electors. Trump's plan (allegedly) was for Pence to see these "competing" electors and toss out all electors for those seven states, then award Trump the presidency based on having 232 total electors instead of the required 270.
the reason the Hawaii 1960 case is relevant is becuase it shows precedent for accepting late electors if any state had sent them. none did.
Read that. So? Describing how the procedure works (and I have a quibble about not requiring 270 from the start) gets to a contingent election under the 12th.
Was Grassley approached with this?
Was Grassley approached with this?
aggiehawg said:
Read that. So? Describing how the procedure works (and I have a quibble about not requiring 270 from the start) gets to a contingent election under the 12th.
Was Grassley approached with this?
I'm just sharing the planning document since you said you'd never heard of their plan.
There can be two interpretations since the Electoral Count Act at the time (2021) was such a mess. There was an argument to be made that the decision be thrown back to the governors to certify the results in the states under dispute. Biden would still win as PA, MI, WI, etc had Dem governors and neither Ducey in AZ nor Kemp in GA would side with Trump. Again that is under the old Electoral Count Act.Quote:
Taking that at face value, is that illegal or just a novel application of existing law?
The amendments to the ECA have practically ensured there will be no more objections to electors on Jan 6th for Congress to address anymore. Which in and of itself may be problematical from a Constitutional standpoint but hard to see a situation wherein it could ever be challenged in court with the Catch 22 that is baked into election law.
even eastman has since admitted the plan was not viable and would have been crazy to pursue.Quote:
Taking that at face value, is that illegal or just a novel application of existing law?
there is no reading of the constitution or then electoral college act that allowed the VP to throw out electoral votes on his own.
the correct process was for the house and senate to object.
What about the governors being able to certify the electors under the old ECA? (which is likely unconstitutional) nonetheless that procedure was available at the time. What is the argument that Pence could not ask for such a certification prior to Jan 6th?BMX Bandit said:even eastman has since admitted the plan was not viable and would have been crazy to pursue.Quote:
Taking that at face value, is that illegal or just a novel application of existing law?
there is no reading of the constitution or then electoral college act that allowed the VP to throw out electoral votes on his own.
the correct process was for the house and senate to object.
It's nearly certain that:BMX Bandit said:
In terms of timing, I believe there were three months remaining until trial, whenever the stay initially went into effect. Trump will get at least that much time following a Supreme Court mandate before he has to go to trial.**
Does anyone here really think the Department of Justice is going to follow their traditional guidelines about cases near elections?
So if they want to have this started by mid September, they need a Supreme Court ruling by mid-June. That's even pushing it. I said earlier and still think that only way this is tried before November is if it's out of appellate courts in May.
**this assumes Trump flat out loses at the Supreme Court. There's a possibility, albeit a small one in my opinion, they send this back down to trial court with guideline for determining immunity and appeals start all over again
1) SCOTUS will rule against Trump
2) the ruling will be among the last released, at the end of June
There's no reason to follow the "guidelines" of starting trials near elections, given that the case will be over a year old at that point and the only cause of delay was appeals on a pivotal legal issue.
I really don't know what's going to happen. I would think Chutkan would give them 2-3 months at least to prepare for trial. I don't see her rewarding Trump for obvious delay tactics. But with all the pretrial and jury selection, a trial before the election (let alone a conclusion before the election) looks bleak.
DOJ's "guidelines" involve overt investigative steps and starting criminal proceedings. And these are unwritten, by the way.
They don't apply to ongoing proceedings and have no application whatsoever to judges, who can schedule whatever they want during an election.
One can believe a judge shouldn't schedule a trial then but this issue about the DOJ policy is smoke and mirrors.
They don't apply to ongoing proceedings and have no application whatsoever to judges, who can schedule whatever they want during an election.
One can believe a judge shouldn't schedule a trial then but this issue about the DOJ policy is smoke and mirrors.
Chutkan is not operating in a vacuum. There are other trials that may be scheduled that she has to work around.
which ones? NY is next month. FL is scheduled for May and likely to be continued, and when it is, that will likely be before a SCOTUS ruling, GA is a crapshoot.
We all know Trump's strategy will be to say "no I have another trial around then" and then continue it when the time comes, but not sure he'll have that out if and when the case gets back to Chutkan
We all know Trump's strategy will be to say "no I have another trial around then" and then continue it when the time comes, but not sure he'll have that out if and when the case gets back to Chutkan
She's a federal judge. She can control her own docket to squeeze Trump in and push other cases down the line.aggiehawg said:
Chutkan is not operating in a vacuum. There are other trials that may be scheduled that she has to work around.
You know she is motivated to do so!
I'm Gipper
I'm far from a "high volume" lawyer and I've had one foot out the door of the profession for about a year because our profession frankly sucks in part because of having no control over schedules 
, but even I've had judges decide to double book me and tell me to let them know if my schedule gets freed up.
I think at this point there are so many moving parts its not even worth thinking much about possible scheduling conflicts between the trials.
, but even I've had judges decide to double book me and tell me to let them know if my schedule gets freed up.I think at this point there are so many moving parts its not even worth thinking much about possible scheduling conflicts between the trials.
A communist judge in some federal trial court will concoct some way to convict him of something before November, come hell or high water. They know they can't depend on the state kangaroo courts at this point in Georgia/NY to stop him, so they have to ramp up the lawfare again.
None of his questions/intent in 2020 were illegal, or unconstitutional. The clear and present danger to America and the world are the actions of Biden's cabinet leaving him nominally in charge of decisions with nuclear weapons as a dementia patient.
None of his questions/intent in 2020 were illegal, or unconstitutional. The clear and present danger to America and the world are the actions of Biden's cabinet leaving him nominally in charge of decisions with nuclear weapons as a dementia patient.
judges cant convict him.
This cuts both ways though.Quote:
I don't see her rewarding Trump for obvious delay tactics.
Prosecution sat for 3-years to get rolling on this case.
If they do give out an opinion in June, don't see how they cram the biggest trial in the history of the US into 3-4 months to get a verdict before the election.
August is a dead month. They'd have to bend over backwards and move mountains to get this done.
Don't see how it's logistically possible for a case to move that fast. But we'll see. But agreed, don't see how it gets done.
I absolutely adore that you are trying to give me a legal education. Thank you.barbacoa taco said:
judges cant convict him.
clearly you need itnortex97 said:I absolutely adore that you are trying to give me a legal education. Thank you.barbacoa taco said:
judges cant convict him.
you're probably right. and Merrick Garland is deservedly getting a lot of heat for sitting on his hands for nearly 2 years. It was entirely predictable that delays would happen.
This was all quite deliberate, as you well know. The White House coordinated all these cases so they would interfere with Donald Trump's ability to campaign for the election.barbacoa taco said:
you're probably right. and Merrick Garland is deservedly getting a lot of heat for sitting on his hands for nearly 2 years. It was entirely predictable that delays would happen.
Actual election interference.
What was their game plan here?
Did they anticipate they could force Trump to give up and drop out?
Seems like everything they've tried to throw at Trump over the past 3-years has backfired and made him more popular.
Nobody cares what Trump is accused of anymore. The public is desensitized to all of it.
Now they two-blocked against the summer and the election and assume they are goigng to push one of these cases to trial and get a conviction?
Something else has to be the end game here.
The question is whether it's going to plan ... or not going to plan.
Can't say whoever is orchestrating all this is that stupid. It's been meticulously planned. We just aren't privy to what that plan is.
Did they anticipate they could force Trump to give up and drop out?
Seems like everything they've tried to throw at Trump over the past 3-years has backfired and made him more popular.
Nobody cares what Trump is accused of anymore. The public is desensitized to all of it.
Now they two-blocked against the summer and the election and assume they are goigng to push one of these cases to trial and get a conviction?
Something else has to be the end game here.
The question is whether it's going to plan ... or not going to plan.
Can't say whoever is orchestrating all this is that stupid. It's been meticulously planned. We just aren't privy to what that plan is.
Will Trump's political opponents try to jail him or disqualify him from office weeks before the election? .... or will some other unknown strategy be employed.
Trump will not be allowed to be sworn in again.
By hook or by crook.
Thats my prediction. So we'll see.
Trump will not be allowed to be sworn in again.
By hook or by crook.
Thats my prediction. So we'll see.
You've been predicting since June that Trump was going to be jailed for contempt, so I'd say based on that track this is good news for Trump and America that he will be president come January 2025!Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Will Trump's political opponents try to jail him or disqualify him from office weeks before the election? .... or will some other unknown strategy be employed.
Trump will not be allowed to be sworn in again.
By hook or by crook.
Thats my prediction. So we'll see.
I'm Gipper
I stand on that prediction as well.
They talking about crafting a 'narrowly tailored' gag order just last week.
They still got that card up their sleeve.
They talking about crafting a 'narrowly tailored' gag order just last week.
They still got that card up their sleeve.
Ellis Wyatt said:This was all quite deliberate, as you well know. The White House coordinated all these cases so they would interfere with Donald Trump's ability to campaign for the election.barbacoa taco said:
you're probably right. and Merrick Garland is deservedly getting a lot of heat for sitting on his hands for nearly 2 years. It was entirely predictable that delays would happen.
Actual election interference.
So whiny. Trump knew this would happen and ran for office partly so he could cry and whine about election interference, and then pardon himself if he wins.
barbacoa taco said:Ellis Wyatt said:This was all quite deliberate, as you well know. The White House coordinated all these cases so they would interfere with Donald Trump's ability to campaign for the election.barbacoa taco said:
you're probably right. and Merrick Garland is deservedly getting a lot of heat for sitting on his hands for nearly 2 years. It was entirely predictable that delays would happen.
Actual election interference.
So whiny. Trump knew this would happen and ran for office partly so he could cry and whine about election interference, and then pardon himself if he wins.
So sad that you probably believe that. You and Rachael Madcow.
I have a question that I've not seen discussed. I'm not at all suggesting that this has happened. The scenario is this, proven, absolute fraud with the electoral votes. I'm thinking of votes being sold to the highest bidder. Is that illegal? Can those votes be ignored? Do the votes go back to the individual states? Who has the authority to decide?
The Senate and House.fatherof4 said:
I have a question that I've not seen discussed. I'm not at all suggesting that this has happened. The scenario is this, proven, absolute fraud with the electoral votes. I'm thinking of votes being sold to the highest bidder. Is that illegal? Can those votes be ignored? Do the votes go back to the individual states? Who has the authority to decide?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
I'm Gipper
I have seen a lot of ignorant posts in TexAgs but this has to rank up there with the top ten. Someone should create a New Thread like the Political Humor one, where idiot posts like this can be copied to and then we rank them for stupidity by upvotes.
Anyone consistently in the top 100 should receive a permanent ban.
"So whiny. Trump knew this would happen and ran for office partly so he could cry and whine about election interference, and then pardon himself if he wins."
Anyone consistently in the top 100 should receive a permanent ban.
"So whiny. Trump knew this would happen and ran for office partly so he could cry and whine about election interference, and then pardon himself if he wins."
hawg-
this seems not to be fair, can you comment:
this seems not to be fair, can you comment:
NEW: Jack Smith is asking a court *not* to screen prospective jurors for their political party OR for if they voted in 2020.
— Sarah Bedford (@sarahcbedford) February 29, 2024
Smith does, however, want to screen jurors for if they think the DOJ is being unfair to Trump. via @KaelanDC https://t.co/7ERsOgvEEh
Smith makes it ever more clear that he is biased with each move he makes.Logos Stick said:
hawg-
this seems not to be fair, can you comment:NEW: Jack Smith is asking a court *not* to screen prospective jurors for their political party OR for if they voted in 2020.
— Sarah Bedford (@sarahcbedford) February 29, 2024
Smith does, however, want to screen jurors for if they think the DOJ is being unfair to Trump. via @KaelanDC https://t.co/7ERsOgvEEh
Arguing over jury questionnaires is usual where those questionnaires are allowed. Just to clarify, this is in Judge Cannon's court over the classified documents, not Jan 6th.Logos Stick said:
hawg-
this seems not to be fair, can you comment:NEW: Jack Smith is asking a court *not* to screen prospective jurors for their political party OR for if they voted in 2020.
— Sarah Bedford (@sarahcbedford) February 29, 2024
Smith does, however, want to screen jurors for if they think the DOJ is being unfair to Trump. via @KaelanDC https://t.co/7ERsOgvEEh
I will note it is kind of petty for Smith to object to questions about the presumption of innocence, burden of proof on the state and ability of a prospective juror to be impartial and render judgment just on the evidence.
Yes, I understand that skates into jury instruction territory but the purpose of the questionnaire is to weed out those jurors who might have bias early on.
Is it a game? Yes but a game that gets played often. I will add that I would trust Cannon to resolve the issue fairly, much more than I would trust Chutkan.
Featured Stories
See All
66:03
12h ago
6.3k
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
54:59
14h ago
1.1k
37:53
11h ago
837
Reed Report: Chatting with D-Kirk, recapping A&M's 4-0 home stand
by Luke Evangelist
10:56
18h ago
3.0k
agracer
WHY the hell is our program suiting up in similar unis as our competition again???
in Texas A&M Football
5