At one time, I had a lot of respect for Pence. He fooled me... once.

My apologies if sdy may have already posted this article from the Treehouse elsewhere on this forum. . .

REMINDER – The Parliamentary Motive Behind the J6 Fedsurrection

. . .but it is an excellent summary / observation of the timing of the J6 ‘protestors’ and how they coincided with some of the congressional proceedings that day.

Excellent article, Cookster, thanks for the link.

Reminds me that by August 2021, at least four of the Capitol police officers were no longer available as witnesses.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RichardC,

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
At one time, I had a lot of respect for Pence. He fooled me... once.

Mike Pence, 'Constitutional Hero'?

By Don Brown

If you once served as Vice President of the United States, polling below 5% in your own party's presidential primary can trigger a stream of unbridled bitterness.

Case in point: Mike Pence, who, in a Real Clear Politics poll published through August 2, 2023, polled at 4.8 percent among Republican voters, trailing the previously-unknown Vivek Ramaswamy, who had 5.2 percent.

Like a freezing cold bucket of reality splashed onto Pence’s face, losing to a 37-year-old entrepreneur who, six months ago, nobody ever heard of, has apparently unleashed the floodgates of animosity harbored deep within. Embittered by his demise, Pence now fumes against President Trump, the man to whom he owes the Vice Presidency, seemingly siding with rogue prosecutor Jack Smith.

“I had no right to overturn the election,” Pence told CNN. ”And on that day, President Trump asked me to put him over the Constitution. But I chose the Constitution. And I always will.” He rambles on. “Anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be President of the United States.”

Really, Pence? You “chose the Constitution,” did you? That’s your spin? The President asked you to “overturn” the election? To put himself over the Constitution? He said that?

Actually, the President suggested sending questionable electors back to state legislatures, for proper consideration, in states where highly irregular tactics had seemingly undermined the election.

If, after further consideration, Biden still won, then Biden won.

Despite Pence’s “I was for the Constitution and Trump wasn’t” nonsense, the truth is the Constitution doesn't address the issue, one way or the other. It isn’t like some constitutional clause decrees that “the President shall not ask the Vice President to send electors back to certain states for certification or clarification.”

The only reference to the Vice-President’s role is in the Electoral College Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 3), which provides that the President of the Senate (The VP) shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted."

Some self-anointed “constitutional scholars,” say that the VP has no discretion in the Electoral College count, and that his role is primarily “ceremonial.” In other words, they claim the VP can count, and nothing else. That’s their opinion. But a quick search of the Constitution reveals no reference to the word “ceremonial.”

To the contrary, at least some evidence exists historically that the VP’s role is more than ceremonial. In the 1960 election, after a razor-thin back-and-forth between Nixon and Kennedy in Hawaii, Hawaii sent two competing sets of electors to Washington.

Upon receiving the competing slates, Vice President Nixon made a discretionary decision. Rather than freezing up, as Pence did, and claiming the Constitution didn’t allow him to act, Nixon opened envelopes from competing electors, then presented both sets of Hawaii’s electors to Congress, three for Kennedy and three for himself. He then moved that the Democrat slate be counted.

In other words, Nixon served as judge over the count, even though the Constitution did not specifically address the procedure Nixon followed. By the way, nobody prosecuted the alternate electors from Hawaii, under some concocted bizarre Jack Smith-like legal theory.

Both Nixon and Pence, and other VPs since 1877, operated under the Electoral Commission Act of 1877, passed after the contentious 1876 election between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden.

The 1877 Act did not limit the VP’s role only to something ceremonial, but instead, established a procedure for handling competing electors from each state.

The Act established a special Electoral Commission with fifteen members, including five members from the Senate, five members from the House, and five Supreme Court Justices.

Pence could have arguably sent disputed electors to that Commission. Instead, he acted as if he had no authority to do anything.

After the 2020 Election, Congress amended the 1877 Act to declare that the VP’s role is only “ministerial in nature.” But as President Trump has asked, if the VP’s role were merely “ministerial” or “ceremonial” to begin with, why now pass a law declaring it ministerial?

Back to Pence’s ‘I’m for the Constitution but Trump is not” babblings,

The Constitution is silent on whether Pence, prior to the count, could send electors back to the states for clarification. Pence didn’t want to rock the boat. That’s on Pence.

But Pence suggesting some clear-cut constitutional divide where he defended the Constitution, while Trump opposed it, is beyond disingenuous.

Had Pence said, “The President I simply disagreed on a legal interpretation,” that would have been one thing.

But to portray himself as a Constitutional Hero, and Trump as a villain, such exaggerated bombast undermines the faith that Pence so frequently claims to embrace.

President Trump, like millions of Americans, questioned the election process. After all, six states Trump was winning reportedly shut down at 10 PM. In all those states, votes trickled in over the following days for Biden -- one of many major red flags from the 2020 election.

Perhaps Pence should learn that defending the Constitution might mean not turning a blind eye, without question, to questionable circumstances that on the surface resemble rampant cheating.

“The courts have spoken,” Pence and his RINO allies like to claim.

But consider this: what court heard evidence on what we saw in the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, where election officials shut down, sent Republican poll watchers home at 10 PM, then pulled out pull long black boxes of ballots and ran them through counting machines with no Republican observers present?

What court considered ballot-stuffed truckloads to the TGY Center in Detroit, in the dark, early morning hours, where Michigan, like Georgia and four other states, suddenly shut down at 10:00, with Trump winning big time?

What court heard evidence shown in the documentary 2000 Mules, evidence on hundreds of thousands of ballots stuffed into drop boxes in the dark of the night, with nobody looking, without any identifiable chain-of-custody as to their source?

The answer? Zero. Most courts found form-over-substance reasons to avoid election fraud cases, many citing “standing” as their reason for dismissal.

Not even the Supreme Court, which 20 years earlier, in Bush v Gore, found that different counting procedures in different counties violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, would touch this hot potato. Texas v. Pennsylvania in 2020, made Florida’s hanging chad controversy look like a harmless Romper Room party. But SCOTUS wouldn’t touch it.

Trump had every right to ask questions.

Perhaps Pence, if he were concerned about constitutional integrity, should have pushed a little harder, too. “On that day,” as Pence calls it, he seemed all too eager to pal it up with Nancy Pelosi, once the deed was done.

Wallowing in bitterness from the realization that he couldn’t get elected dogcatcher, Pence now aligns with the Anybody but Trump RINOs, alongside Bill Kristol, George F. Will, and “Lincoln Project” champagne-sippers like George Conway.

Just be honest, Mike. You interpreted the law differently -- probably from fear -- to justify inaction. And that’s your right.

But you’re no constitutional hero. So stop with the false bravado. Your newfound role of whining prevaricator doesn’t suit you well.

Don Brown is a former U.S. Navy JAG officer

https://www.americanthinker.co...titutional_hero.html

That guy just needs to be punched in the taint...

Mike Thirty Silver Pence is as relevant as 2 day old spitoon juice. Just go away, now.

long article, partial here

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...riginally-portrayed/


The universe of political entities surrounding former President Donald Trump, the leading 2024 GOP candidate, is far stronger financially than some reports originally suggested, Breitbart News has learned from speaking with several senior Trump advisers and from federally-filed data.

“Grassroots donors have given President Trump a massive fundraising advantage, and his campaign team has fiercely protected these precious resources,” a senior Trump campaign aide told Breitbart News. “This ensures that the candidate of the people, President Trump, will continue to operate from a dominant position throughout the primary and general elections.”

There are two major formal entities that comprise the Trump team’s 2024 prospects: his actual campaign and the super PAC MAGA Inc. In addition, there is a leadership PAC that Trump controls called Save America.

Trump’s campaign since launch has raised a total of $39 million, but only approximately $700,000 of that cash is reserved for the general election. Having a giant pile of $26 million cash that can be used for the primary—while Trump is currently leading all the polls—is an extremely good detail for the Trump campaign given the fact that represents about a 37 percent burn rate, which is much lower than the rest of the field. While that’s good for Trump, the picture gets even better for him when considering the universe of donors available to him to tap and tap again.

The Trump campaign has a house file of more than 21 million individuals comprised of those who are both historical and current donors—people who have given to Trump’s previous campaigns and this one—as well as people who have volunteered, attended rallies, or taken some other kind of action in support of Trump over the years. Of that 21 million house file of people, four million of them are donors and 17 million are non-donors.

The people who have already given to Trump’s 2024 campaign, for the most part, have not even come close to maxing out in primary donations. That universe of several hundred thousand unique donors can be tapped again and again, several more times before they would give the $3,300 max—and most will probably never reach that. So the actual Trump campaign is in great shape—lots of cash on hand, a low burn rate of around 37 percent, and essentially unlimited potential in future donations from people who have already given to Trump in the 2024 campaign and even more potential in the many millions of other donors who have given to Trump in previous campaigns but not this one.

Joey D
8/7/23

Prosecutors obtained warrant for Trump's Twitter account, judge fined company $350,000 for delay

https://justthenews.com/politi..._campaign=newsletter

Federal prosecutors led by Special Counsel Jack Smith obtained a search warrant in January for materials related to former President Donald Trump’s Twitter account, and a judge fined the social media platform $350,000 for delaying compliance with the warrant, court documents released Wednesday show.

The information was revealed in a federal appeals court decision rejecting the social media platform's claim that a lower court was wrong to hold it in contempt and impose the fine.

Smith obtained a warrant directing Twitter, which has since been renamed X, to produce "data and records" relating to the former president's account on the platform, according to the filing obtained by The Associated Press.

Donald Trump won’t kiss the ring and sign Ronna McDaniel’s ‘loyalty’ pledge

Ronna McDaniel saw the writing on the wall—Donald Trump, the most popular Republican candidate in history (by far) refuses to quit in spite of the endless legal and political witch hunts—and something had to be done.

So, Mitt Romney’s niece threw a hail mary, and back in February, McDaniel mulled the idea of a “loyalty pledge” before promptly instituting it. Here’s what she had to say at the time about the tactic, during a chummy conversation with CNN’s Dana Bash, via Politico:

We’re saying you’re not going to get on the debate stage unless you make this pledge[.]

But Trump refused to play her game; reported two days ago:

Donald Trump said Wednesday he will not sign a pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee — an RNC requirement for participation in the first primary debate.

I say this with total sincerity, God bless him.

Trump argued that his declination, which would mean no debate, was “not a question of guts” but of “intelligence” and he’s absolutely right. Trump is an author, and his books include numerous references to famous works of Western literature, which means he’s well-versed in classic authors. He’s likely heard the George Bernard Shaw quote about tussling with swine: “Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” A double entendre for the ages! McDaniel, in particular, is cozy in the sty and at the trough of establishment politics.

But, I’d also argue Trump’s move is a matter of principle, and seemingly, so does he. From a Florida outlet:

‘Why would I sign it?’ Trump said in an interview on the conservative cable network Newsmax. ‘I can name three or four people that I wouldn’t support for president. So right there, there’s a problem.’

Listen to what else McDaniel said about the pledge:

I think it’s kind of a no-brainer, right? If you’re gonna be on the Republican National Committee debate stage, asking voters to support you, you should say I’m gonna support the voters and who they choose as the nominee.

She then continued, saying:

We have to come together as a party. We saw big races lost this cycle, because of Republicans refusing to support other Republicans… and I am committed to making sure we come together as a party.

Of course, thinly veiled by a generic pretense of unity is what was meant to be an obstacle specifically for Trump, because he’s the only Republican politician not beholden to the RNC elites; and just as he always does, he outmaneuvers.

If Ronna cared about winning, she’d get behind the candidate that is currently dominating in all the polls; one shows a 43 point lead:

If she cared about the Republican voters she wouldn’t abuse her authority, attempting to preclude the people’s most beloved candidate from participation in party events, until he bends his knee to establishment interests.

No other Republican candidate can compete as long as Donald J. Trump is a factor; the GOP elites know it, and they hate it.

https://www.americanthinker.co..._loyalty_pledge.html

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Prosecutors obtained warrant for Trump's Twitter account, judge fined company $350,000 for delay

https://justthenews.com/politi..._campaign=newsletter

Federal prosecutors led by Special Counsel Jack Smith obtained a search warrant in January for materials related to former President Donald Trump’s Twitter account, and a judge fined the social media platform $350,000 for delaying compliance with the warrant, court documents released Wednesday show.

The information was revealed in a federal appeals court decision rejecting the social media platform's claim that a lower court was wrong to hold it in contempt and impose the fine.

Smith obtained a warrant directing Twitter, which has since been renamed X, to produce "data and records" relating to the former president's account on the platform, according to the filing obtained by The Associated Press.

I do not understand why they need Trump's twitter records. Is not everything Trump tweeted PUBLIC ??? God Bless

They are desperate to find anything keep Trump out of the race, the D don't have to work extra hard, the Rinos are going to work even harder...

Link

'Immediate disqualification': Conservative law professors say Constitution bans Trump from presidency

Two leading, highly-credentialed conservative constitutional law professors say the U.S. Constitution already “disqualifies former President Donald Trump” from holding office, including being President, because of his “participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”

In a 126-page University of Pennsylvania Law Review paper published Wednesday, University of Chicago Law School Professor William Baude, and University of St. Thomas School of Law Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, introduce their work by writing:

“Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.”

Appearing to push back against claims made previously by others in defense of a second Trump presidential term, they write: “Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation.”

They say Congress need do nothing to implement Trump’s “immediate disqualification from office.”

“Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.”

The law professors add, “to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as ‘aid or comfort.’ It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency.”

And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”

The New York Times notes that both professors “are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.”

Steven G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and Yale and a founder of the Federalist Society,” The Times adds, “called the article ‘a tour de force.'”

“Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot,” Professor Calabresi told The Times, “and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them.” Calabresi also “said…that they may be sued for refusing to do so.”

Former U.S. Appeals Court Judge J. Michael Luttig, a “star witness” during a televised hearing of the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, also praised the article. He says it “promises to be of monumental — and historic, if not also contemporary — importance to Constitutional Law.”

Noah Bookbinder, the President of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) notes the two conservative law professors cite CREW’s work in their article. He calls it, “Extremely significant that two leading conservative legal scholars put out a piece today arguing that section 3 of the 14th Amendment remains enforceable and disqualifies Donald Trump from office.”

Judge sides with Trump on protective order, handing Jack Smith an early defeat

https://justthenews.com/politi..._campaign=newsletter

Afederal judge on Friday sided with Donald Trump, rejecting a request from Special Counsel Jack Smith for a protective order that would have imposed some speech restrictions on the former president as he runs in the 2024 election.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled prosecutors did not meet the burden for the protective order but also put Trump on notice he will have to be careful about what he says and releases about the case.

"Mr. Trump, like any American, has a right to free speech," Chutkan said. "But that right is not absolute."

Smith had requested the protective order last Friday after Trump posted to TRUTH Social, saying, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

The Trump campaign said the social media message was aimed at political interest groups and not witnesses in his case.

quote:

I do not understand why they need Trump's twitter records. Is not everything Trump tweeted PUBLIC ???

The tweets are, but they also got access to his DM's as well.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
At one time, I had a lot of respect for Pence. He fooled me... once.

Mike Pence, 'Constitutional Hero'?

By Don Brown

https://www.americanthinker.co...titutional_hero.html

That is an excellent article. Thanks!


.

quote:

Two leading, highly-credentialed conservative constitutional law professors ( uhhh, huhhh... ) say the U.S. Constitution already “disqualifies former President Donald Trump” from holding office, including being President, because of his alleged “participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”

In a 126-page University of Pennsylvania Law Review paper published Wednesday, University of Chicago Law School Professor William Baude, and University of St. Thomas School of Law Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen,

These are some fart smellers... alleged 126 pages? Puhleeease

Sure seems to me like the people that purport to be experts, don't ever seem to know squat.

Just so we're clear, that's the same U Penn that hosts the Penn Biden Center, and received/s untold millions of $ from the Chinese and funneled it to Biden and people in his orbit. That includes probably half of the people in his current cabinet. Blinken, Sullivan, et al...

Chicago Law is tied up pretty tightly with Obummer...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: stoic-one,

Trump RICO Indictment Briefly Appears On Georgia Court Docket

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...-new-rico-indictment

Former President Donald Trump is apparently going to be indicted under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act) statute, according to a document which was briefly posted on the Fulton County, Georgia court's website.



Case information at link: Photo too large to post here.

Also this twitter feed from a Reuters reporter shows the charges.

https://twitter.com/jackqueen_...-new-rico-indictment

From Jack Posobiec on twatter:

quote:

According to Reuters, Fulton County posted charges to their docket BEFORE the grand jury had even finished

This means the grand jury has been completely tainted

How can they objectively vote on charges when they've already heard of the decision to charge?

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
From Jack Posobiec on twatter:

quote:

According to Reuters, Fulton County posted charges to their docket BEFORE the grand jury had even finished

This means the grand jury has been completely tainted

How can they objectively vote on charges when they've already heard of the decision to charge?

Here is more to what you posted.


Georgia DA Fani Willis Publishes Trump Indictment Charges Before Grand Jury Has Even Voted.

https://thenationalpulse.com/2...jury-has-even-voted/

A two page docket report was posted, then removed, from the Fulton County, Georgia court website today concerning the impending indictment of former President Donald Trump. The incident led to corporate media outlets and news wires originally reporting that an indictment has been handed down Monday. It had not. The briefly public docket report revealed that District Attorney Willis will be seeking a range of charges against Trump including racketeering, conspiracy, and making false statements – it is not currently known if additional charges will be included.

The apparent errant posting of charges is just the latest in controversies that have plagued Fani Willis and her attempt to prosecute the former President. A judge forced Willis off part of the Georgia investigation regarding the 2020 presidential election last year when it was revealed that Willis had held a political fundraiser for the Democrat opponent of a state Republican lawmaker who also happened to be one of her investigative targets. Most recently Willis came under scrutiny for launching a political fundraising website with an email tease stating: “We have an announcement”. Critics argue that Willis is politicizing her potential prosecution of Trump and using the allure of potential court drama line her campaign war chest with donor money and raise her political profile for a potential run at higher elected office.