(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

And if Eastman is correct and the path suggested is followed none the less---so what? It would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court. If you are using a disputed interpretation of the Constitutional rules and the US court system to adjudicate the dispute---how exactly is that a criminal act? This kind of thing literally happens daily and represents an ongoing constant conflict in government as the different branches push against one another over power disputes---using the JUDICIAL BRANCH to adjudicate disagreements. Generally---you have to actually move forward with an action before it can go to a court for a decision. You dont get to just run it up the flagpole over at the Supreme Court and see what they say about your interpretation before acting on your interpretation of the rules (like in this instance). Laws are found unconstitutional all the time----we dont then arrest the legislators who were responsible for passing the law now do we? Thats literally what the DOJ is trying to do here. They are trying to elevate a political dispute over what is and isnt possible under the constitutional election rules into a crime.

(08-27-2023 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

And if Eastman is correct and the path suggested is followed none the less---so what? It would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court. If you are using a disputed interpretation of the Constitutional rules and the US court system to adjudicate the dispute---how exactly is that a criminal act? This kind of thing literally happens daily and represents an ongoing constant conflict in government as the different branches push against one another over power disputes---using the JUDICIAL BRANCH to adjudicate disagreements. Generally---you have to actually move forward with an action before it can go to a court for a decision. You dont get to just run it up the flagpole over at the Supreme Court and see what they say about your interpretation before acting on your interpretation of the rules (like in this instance). Laws are found unconstitutional all the time----we dont then arrest the legislators who were responsible for passing the law now do we? Thats literally what the DOJ is trying to do here. They are trying to elevate a political dispute over what is and isnt possible under the constitutional election rules into a crime.

You are admitting that it is illegal.

When I tell my client 'you can do perform that action, expect to lose in court 9-0', or 'expect to be charged with criminal counts' -- those are telling him they are illegal acts. As -- against the law.

Again, take a look at Eastman's communication to Pence on the late evening of 1/6 -- admitting to illegal acts.

And no -- the DOJ is saying 'trying to short circuit a state's elections for your own benefit' is illegal. Seems pretty basic to me. Its called fraud.

And additionally, they are saying trying to get the US VP to commit a known illegal act to simply declare you President and to simply toss out certified votes is illegal.

Again, seems pretty common sense to me.

(08-27-2023 12:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

Poor Tanq. The fact that the democrats tried over and over again, and finally succeeded, in changing the law where the vp could refuse to acknowledge electors from states that didnt follow their own election laws is proof positive that nothing Trump posed was "illegal". That is libturd-think.

Maybe you should send a chastising note to Eastman there, chuckles. Even he, the author of the plan, readily acknowledged the illegality of it, both via message and in the course of the meetings in the President's office.

But hey, why let little facts like a few admissions and statements against interest get in your way. Lolz.

Yo twinkles. You dont go asking the author of a law what it says. You read the bill that was signed into law and go by that. I guess they didnt cover that part of your lawyer training in small claims court.

(08-27-2023 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

And if Eastman is correct and the path suggested is followed none the less---so what? It would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court. If you are using a disputed interpretation of the Constitutional rules and the US court system to adjudicate the dispute---how exactly is that a criminal act? This kind of thing literally happens daily and represents an ongoing constant conflict in government as the different branches push against one another over power disputes---using the JUDICIAL BRANCH to adjudicate disagreements. Generally---you have to actually move forward with an action before it can go to a court for a decision. You dont get to just run it up the flagpole over at the Supreme Court and see what they say about your interpretation before acting on your interpretation of the rules (like in this instance). Laws are found unconstitutional all the time----we dont then arrest the legislators who were responsible for passing the law now do we? Thats literally what the DOJ is trying to do here. They are trying to elevate a political dispute over what is and isnt possible under the constitutional election rules into a crime.

You are admitting that it is illegal.

When I tell my client 'you can do perform that action, expect to lose in court 9-0', or 'expect to be charged with criminal counts' -- those are telling him they are illegal acts. As -- against the law.

Again, take a look at Eastman's communication to Pence on the late evening of 1/6 -- admitting to illegal acts.

And no -- the DOJ is saying 'trying to short circuit a state's elections for your own benefit' is illegal. Seems pretty basic to me. Its called fraud.

And additionally, they are saying trying to get the US VP to commit a known illegal act to simply declare you President and to simply toss out certified votes is illegal.

Again, seems pretty common sense to me.

No. I didnt say it was illegal. I said if Eastman was right---what would have been the ultimate outcome? It would have been a 9-0 decision and more proof that the system works. The reality is the interpretation was an unknown until the judicial system says it is or is not constitutional. It still is an unknown because the action was never implemented and the courts were never called on to resolve the dispute. Basically, Trump is being charged with advocating an action, that is not actually known to be illegal at the time, and which was never actually implemented. In other words, his interpretation---whether correct or not---did not persuade. We have legislators on both sides of the aisle at the state level that have advocated and attempted to get succession proposals enacted in state legislatures. Why arent they in jail for sedition or insurrection? The legal decision on succession was made ions ago. In this case---we dont have a decision. The DOJ is effectively saying advocating for yourself in a constitutional election rules dispute is a criminal act. Really? Since when?

Furthermore, I am saying we have never arrested legislators and charged them with a crime for passing a law that is later found to be unconstitutional. We have never before criminalized disputes over the interpretation of the constitution that were not known prior to the court decision. As I said---we still have dont know for sure what the SC decision would be on this issue. We do know the law was changed to eliminate the specific interpretation of the rules---which is interesting in light of our current discussion.

(08-27-2023 01:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

Poor Tanq. The fact that the democrats tried over and over again, and finally succeeded, in changing the law where the vp could refuse to acknowledge electors from states that didnt follow their own election laws is proof positive that nothing Trump posed was "illegal". That is libturd-think.

Maybe you should send a chastising note to Eastman there, chuckles. Even he, the author of the plan, readily acknowledged the illegality of it, both via message and in the course of the meetings in the President's office.

But hey, why let little facts like a few admissions and statements against interest get in your way. Lolz.

Yo twinkles. You dont go asking the author of a law what it says. You read the bill that was signed into law and go by that. I guess they didnt cover that part of your lawyer training in small claims court.

Eastman isnt the author of a law. He was the author of a plan. And the author of a plan has every ability to state if it is illegal or not. Which Eastman readily admitted to. In multiple times, and multiple fashions.

Who is saying *anything* about 'asking the author of a law' about anything?

Do you have any clue who John Eastman is, and what role he performed in the crackpot sessions that came out of Trump's end- presidency?

(08-27-2023 01:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

And if Eastman is correct and the path suggested is followed none the less---so what? It would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court. If you are using a disputed interpretation of the Constitutional rules and the US court system to adjudicate the dispute---how exactly is that a criminal act? This kind of thing literally happens daily and represents an ongoing constant conflict in government as the different branches push against one another over power disputes---using the JUDICIAL BRANCH to adjudicate disagreements. Generally---you have to actually move forward with an action before it can go to a court for a decision. You dont get to just run it up the flagpole over at the Supreme Court and see what they say about your interpretation before acting on your interpretation of the rules (like in this instance). Laws are found unconstitutional all the time----we dont then arrest the legislators who were responsible for passing the law now do we? Thats literally what the DOJ is trying to do here. They are trying to elevate a political dispute over what is and isnt possible under the constitutional election rules into a crime.

You are admitting that it is illegal.

When I tell my client 'you can do perform that action, expect to lose in court 9-0', or 'expect to be charged with criminal counts' -- those are telling him they are illegal acts. As -- against the law.

Again, take a look at Eastman's communication to Pence on the late evening of 1/6 -- admitting to illegal acts.

And no -- the DOJ is saying 'trying to short circuit a state's elections for your own benefit' is illegal. Seems pretty basic to me. Its called fraud.

And additionally, they are saying trying to get the US VP to commit a known illegal act to simply declare you President and to simply toss out certified votes is illegal.

Again, seems pretty common sense to me.

No. I didnt say it was illegal. I said if Eastman was right---what have been the ultimate outcome? It would have been a 9-0 decision and more proof that the system works. The reality is the interpretation was an unknown until the judicial system says it is or is not constitutional.

I am saying we have never arrested legislators and charged them with a crime for passing a law that is later found to be unconstitutional. We have never before criminalized disputes over the interpretation of the constitution that were not known prior to the court decision. Heck---we still have no idea what the decision would be. We do know the law was changed to eliminate the specific interpretation of the rules---which is interesting in light of our current discussion.

He readily admitted to the plan being illegal under the ECA. Explicitly. See above.

Kind of weird to be debating this when the author of the fked up crackpot plan admits in writing to the efforts being illegal, and urging even more violations.

I'm tired of wading though all the sh!t that's been scared out of democrats.

(08-27-2023 11:26 AM)shere khan Wrote:  The filth want civil war. They got a taste when the progvfilth tards rolled over for them during covid. No better excuse to rule over you than a good civil war

This kinda shite. Screwing with elections. Causes war.

It'll never happen. Cons are too law abiding and the Demonics know it and that's why they break every law there is. Get ready to live under Socialism/Communism and have a Putin as your leader.

(08-27-2023 01:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

And if Eastman is correct and the path suggested is followed none the less---so what? It would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court. If you are using a disputed interpretation of the Constitutional rules and the US court system to adjudicate the dispute---how exactly is that a criminal act? This kind of thing literally happens daily and represents an ongoing constant conflict in government as the different branches push against one another over power disputes---using the JUDICIAL BRANCH to adjudicate disagreements. Generally---you have to actually move forward with an action before it can go to a court for a decision. You dont get to just run it up the flagpole over at the Supreme Court and see what they say about your interpretation before acting on your interpretation of the rules (like in this instance). Laws are found unconstitutional all the time----we dont then arrest the legislators who were responsible for passing the law now do we? Thats literally what the DOJ is trying to do here. They are trying to elevate a political dispute over what is and isnt possible under the constitutional election rules into a crime.

You are admitting that it is illegal.

When I tell my client 'you can do perform that action, expect to lose in court 9-0', or 'expect to be charged with criminal counts' -- those are telling him they are illegal acts. As -- against the law.

Again, take a look at Eastman's communication to Pence on the late evening of 1/6 -- admitting to illegal acts.

And no -- the DOJ is saying 'trying to short circuit a state's elections for your own benefit' is illegal. Seems pretty basic to me. Its called fraud.

And additionally, they are saying trying to get the US VP to commit a known illegal act to simply declare you President and to simply toss out certified votes is illegal.

Again, seems pretty common sense to me.

No. I didnt say it was illegal. I said if Eastman was right---what have been the ultimate outcome? It would have been a 9-0 decision and more proof that the system works. The reality is the interpretation was an unknown until the judicial system says it is or is not constitutional.

I am saying we have never arrested legislators and charged them with a crime for passing a law that is later found to be unconstitutional. We have never before criminalized disputes over the interpretation of the constitution that were not known prior to the court decision. Heck---we still have no idea what the decision would be. We do know the law was changed to eliminate the specific interpretation of the rules---which is interesting in light of our current discussion.

He readily admitted to the plan being illegal under the ECA. Explicitly. See above.

Kind of weird to be debating this when the author of the fked up crackpot plan admits in writing to the efforts being illegal, and urging even more violations.

I wasnt aware Eastman now has the power of the Supreme Court. When exactly did that occur? Furthermore, its not like Eastman was the only advocate for that plan. You still havent answered how this DOJ criminalizing constitution interpretation disputes wouldnt be applicable to every member of any legislature who has a law overturned by any court (especially the SC). It is a criminalization of politics and the OP is the real reason why its occurring. The DOJ is clearly dead set on interfering with the 2024 election---with the specific intent of denying Republican voters the ability to cast a ballot for the candidate they prefer. The real hypocrisy of the whole thing is the Biden DOJ is attempting to do exactly what they allege Trump was doing---interfere with the voting rights of citizens.

(08-27-2023 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And if Eastman is correct and the path suggested is followed none the less---so what? It would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court. If you are using a disputed interpretation of the Constitutional rules and the US court system to adjudicate the dispute---how exactly is that a criminal act? This kind of thing literally happens daily and represents an ongoing constant conflict in government as the different branches push against one another over power disputes---using the JUDICIAL BRANCH to adjudicate disagreements. Generally---you have to actually move forward with an action before it can go to a court for a decision. You dont get to just run it up the flagpole over at the Supreme Court and see what they say about your interpretation before acting on your interpretation of the rules (like in this instance). Laws are found unconstitutional all the time----we dont then arrest the legislators who were responsible for passing the law now do we? Thats literally what the DOJ is trying to do here. They are trying to elevate a political dispute over what is and isnt possible under the constitutional election rules into a crime.

You are admitting that it is illegal.

When I tell my client 'you can do perform that action, expect to lose in court 9-0', or 'expect to be charged with criminal counts' -- those are telling him they are illegal acts. As -- against the law.

Again, take a look at Eastman's communication to Pence on the late evening of 1/6 -- admitting to illegal acts.

And no -- the DOJ is saying 'trying to short circuit a state's elections for your own benefit' is illegal. Seems pretty basic to me. Its called fraud.

And additionally, they are saying trying to get the US VP to commit a known illegal act to simply declare you President and to simply toss out certified votes is illegal.

Again, seems pretty common sense to me.

No. I didnt say it was illegal. I said if Eastman was right---what have been the ultimate outcome? It would have been a 9-0 decision and more proof that the system works. The reality is the interpretation was an unknown until the judicial system says it is or is not constitutional.

I am saying we have never arrested legislators and charged them with a crime for passing a law that is later found to be unconstitutional. We have never before criminalized disputes over the interpretation of the constitution that were not known prior to the court decision. Heck---we still have no idea what the decision would be. We do know the law was changed to eliminate the specific interpretation of the rules---which is interesting in light of our current discussion.

He readily admitted to the plan being illegal under the ECA. Explicitly. See above.

Kind of weird to be debating this when the author of the fked up crackpot plan admits in writing to the efforts being illegal, and urging even more violations.

I wasnt aware Eastman now has the power of the Supreme Court. When exactly did that occur?

He absolutely has the right to opine if his plan is legal or not. And he did just that. On more than one occasion. Amazing, eh?

Much on the lines I have the ability to set up a plan for you to send a fake deed to the county clerk, and have a check sent to her as well in a personal manner, and be able to tell you that I think it would be illegal. Quite the concept. Earth shattering.

If a legal plan's author tells you he thinks its illegal, or that the actions in them are illegal, or urges you to commit 'another violation', do you really think that is an issue? Lolz.

(08-27-2023 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You are admitting that it is illegal.

When I tell my client 'you can do perform that action, expect to lose in court 9-0', or 'expect to be charged with criminal counts' -- those are telling him they are illegal acts. As -- against the law.

Again, take a look at Eastman's communication to Pence on the late evening of 1/6 -- admitting to illegal acts.

And no -- the DOJ is saying 'trying to short circuit a state's elections for your own benefit' is illegal. Seems pretty basic to me. Its called fraud.

And additionally, they are saying trying to get the US VP to commit a known illegal act to simply declare you President and to simply toss out certified votes is illegal.

Again, seems pretty common sense to me.

No. I didnt say it was illegal. I said if Eastman was right---what have been the ultimate outcome? It would have been a 9-0 decision and more proof that the system works. The reality is the interpretation was an unknown until the judicial system says it is or is not constitutional.

I am saying we have never arrested legislators and charged them with a crime for passing a law that is later found to be unconstitutional. We have never before criminalized disputes over the interpretation of the constitution that were not known prior to the court decision. Heck---we still have no idea what the decision would be. We do know the law was changed to eliminate the specific interpretation of the rules---which is interesting in light of our current discussion.

He readily admitted to the plan being illegal under the ECA. Explicitly. See above.

Kind of weird to be debating this when the author of the fked up crackpot plan admits in writing to the efforts being illegal, and urging even more violations.

I wasnt aware Eastman now has the power of the Supreme Court. When exactly did that occur?

He absolutely has the right to opine if his plan is legal or not. And he did just that. On more than one occasion. Amazing, eh?

Much on the lines I have the ability to set up a plan for you to send a fake deed to the county clerk, and have a check sent to her as well in a personal manner, and be able to tell you that I think it would be illegal. Quite the concept. Earth shattering.

If a legal plan's author tells you he thinks its illegal, or that the actions in them are illegal, or urges you to commit 'another violation', do you really think that is an issue? Lolz.

Maybe I'm mistaken on what your words are saying but it seems to me you are basing all of your opinion on the law.....

off the opinion of what Eastman says.

If I'm correct on that I believe what everyone else is trying to point out Eastman can say it means this or say it means that. But its still just his opinion and not the actual law till the federal courts rule on it.

I'll be honest I hardly ever read this shite especially your post on it. Not because I just dismiss what you have to say.....

your style of responding hurts my eyes. I guess I need glasses

edit: more to this point I would guess on every law the SC ruled unconstitutional my guess is there was "some" lawyer arguing it was just that before congress passed it into a bill and the President signed it into law. That is the point you seem to be missing on Attackcoog post

(08-27-2023 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You are admitting that it is illegal.

When I tell my client 'you can do perform that action, expect to lose in court 9-0', or 'expect to be charged with criminal counts' -- those are telling him they are illegal acts. As -- against the law.

Again, take a look at Eastman's communication to Pence on the late evening of 1/6 -- admitting to illegal acts.

And no -- the DOJ is saying 'trying to short circuit a state's elections for your own benefit' is illegal. Seems pretty basic to me. Its called fraud.

And additionally, they are saying trying to get the US VP to commit a known illegal act to simply declare you President and to simply toss out certified votes is illegal.

Again, seems pretty common sense to me.

No. I didnt say it was illegal. I said if Eastman was right---what have been the ultimate outcome? It would have been a 9-0 decision and more proof that the system works. The reality is the interpretation was an unknown until the judicial system says it is or is not constitutional.

I am saying we have never arrested legislators and charged them with a crime for passing a law that is later found to be unconstitutional. We have never before criminalized disputes over the interpretation of the constitution that were not known prior to the court decision. Heck---we still have no idea what the decision would be. We do know the law was changed to eliminate the specific interpretation of the rules---which is interesting in light of our current discussion.

He readily admitted to the plan being illegal under the ECA. Explicitly. See above.

Kind of weird to be debating this when the author of the fked up crackpot plan admits in writing to the efforts being illegal, and urging even more violations.

I wasnt aware Eastman now has the power of the Supreme Court. When exactly did that occur?

He absolutely has the right to opine if his plan is legal or not. And he did just that. On more than one occasion. Amazing, eh?

Much on the lines I have the ability to set up a plan for you to send a fake deed to the county clerk, and have a check sent to her as well in a personal manner, and be able to tell you that I think it would be illegal. Quite the concept. Earth shattering.

If a legal plan's author tells you he thinks its illegal, or that the actions in them are illegal, or urges you to commit 'another violation', do you really think that is an issue? Lolz.

So--he does NOT have supreme court powers? Also, still have no answer as to why legislatures that pass laws later found to be unconstitutional are not charged and arrested. I think we all know the DOJ is way out over its skis with all these indictments. With the OP---its now clear they believe they dont even need a conviction in order to have Trump removed from the ballots----which is all this was ever about.

(08-27-2023 02:40 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 01:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. I didnt say it was illegal. I said if Eastman was right---what have been the ultimate outcome? It would have been a 9-0 decision and more proof that the system works. The reality is the interpretation was an unknown until the judicial system says it is or is not constitutional.

I am saying we have never arrested legislators and charged them with a crime for passing a law that is later found to be unconstitutional. We have never before criminalized disputes over the interpretation of the constitution that were not known prior to the court decision. Heck---we still have no idea what the decision would be. We do know the law was changed to eliminate the specific interpretation of the rules---which is interesting in light of our current discussion.

He readily admitted to the plan being illegal under the ECA. Explicitly. See above.

Kind of weird to be debating this when the author of the fked up crackpot plan admits in writing to the efforts being illegal, and urging even more violations.

I wasnt aware Eastman now has the power of the Supreme Court. When exactly did that occur?

He absolutely has the right to opine if his plan is legal or not. And he did just that. On more than one occasion. Amazing, eh?

Much on the lines I have the ability to set up a plan for you to send a fake deed to the county clerk, and have a check sent to her as well in a personal manner, and be able to tell you that I think it would be illegal. Quite the concept. Earth shattering.

If a legal plan's author tells you he thinks its illegal, or that the actions in them are illegal, or urges you to commit 'another violation', do you really think that is an issue? Lolz.

Maybe I'm mistaken on what your words are saying but it seems to me you are basing all of your opinion on the law.....

off the opinion of what Eastman says.

Not at all.

The ECA is clear -- there is no inherent power by the VP to disallow votes. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

The previous iteration of the ECA did not allow for the VP to do that. Again zero, zilch, nada.

Eastman came up with a fing crackpot claim that the VP did have that power. With literally no basis in anything accorded by the ECA.

Eastman also said at the time that the plan was being discussed that his 'plan' would be shot down in flames as a figment of someone's imagination.

And on the evening of 1/6, in a communication to Pence, Eastman at that time urged Pence to go forward with "another" violation of the ECA, aside from what was already in his plan.

Quote:If I'm correct on that I believe what everyone else is trying to point out Eastman can say it means this or say it means that. But its still just his opinion and not the actual law till the federal courts rule on it.

The issue goes as to the illegality of the efforts. And the basis of whether the 14th amendment, 3rd sec. can be applied.

To most normal people, it seems pretty crystal clear that there is zero basis in the law and in the Constitution for the VP to allow, or disallow, electoral votes based solely at his whim. There really is no question as to that issue.

It seems pretty much fantasy land to assert otherwise. In many respects.

Do you think the only person that can decide whether electoral votes are to be dismissed or not is the VP of the United States? That is the cracker jack plan these dimwits decided to take, all with zero basis in the law, and with their own author saying it was not legal.

(08-27-2023 12:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

The actual language isnt to 'allegiance to the country'. Or anything like that. The language of the section is in terms of the officeholder's oath to the Constitution.

Quote:No person shall ... hold any office ... under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

I would say that pretty much trying to circumvent the Constitution, by trying to usurp the state's themselves in selecting electors, in the attempt to hold onto power is certainly a category that fits the wording.

It says that if you piss on the Constitution, then you cannot serve it.

And I agree that it will be a court matter.

I cannot tell you how many issues of Con Law and Procedure that were theory are now actual caselaw due to DJT. I think we are going to mark another first to him for his service.

Alternate electors are a long tradition. That's been pointed out to you. But you keep trying to prove you really want to be a full blooded NPC.

(08-27-2023 04:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

The actual language isnt to 'allegiance to the country'. Or anything like that. The language of the section is in terms of the officeholder's oath to the Constitution.

Quote:No person shall ... hold any office ... under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

I would say that pretty much trying to circumvent the Constitution, by trying to usurp the state's themselves in selecting electors, in the attempt to hold onto power is certainly a category that fits the wording.

It says that if you piss on the Constitution, then you cannot serve it.

And I agree that it will be a court matter.

I cannot tell you how many issues of Con Law and Procedure that were theory are now actual caselaw due to DJT. I think we are going to mark another first to him for his service.

Alternate electors are a long tradition. That's been pointed out to you. But you keep trying to prove you really want to be a full blooded NPC.

No they are not. You may want to go back and look that one up.

The last instance of alternate slates of electors was 1960, based on the fact that Hawaii still hadnt certified their election.

Last one before that was in the late 1800's.

(08-27-2023 04:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

The actual language isnt to 'allegiance to the country'. Or anything like that. The language of the section is in terms of the officeholder's oath to the Constitution.

Quote:No person shall ... hold any office ... under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

I would say that pretty much trying to circumvent the Constitution, by trying to usurp the state's themselves in selecting electors, in the attempt to hold onto power is certainly a category that fits the wording.

It says that if you piss on the Constitution, then you cannot serve it.

And I agree that it will be a court matter.

I cannot tell you how many issues of Con Law and Procedure that were theory are now actual caselaw due to DJT. I think we are going to mark another first to him for his service.

Alternate electors are a long tradition. That's been pointed out to you. But you keep trying to prove you really want to be a full blooded NPC.

No they are not. You may want to go back and look that one up.

The last instance of alternate slates of electors was 1960, based on the fact that Hawaii still hadnt certified their election.

Last one before that was in the late 1800's.

Not the exact same alternate electors plan----but it certainly qualifies as a conspiracy to undermine the votes of millions of Americans. The difference between the two plans---the 2016 conspiracy actually did manage to undermine the votes of real Americans---the 2020 so called conspiracy did not. Not seeing any charges or arrests stemming from this 2016 RICO conspiricy. Where is the DOJ investigation since we all know they seem very interested in protecting democracy and the voting rights of ALL Americans. Look--I get you dont like Trump---but your far too intelligent to not see that these charges are not about protecting democracy---if anything---they are about undermining democracy in 2024. The OP is the final piece of the puzzle.


https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/e...ton-232195

(08-27-2023 05:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

The actual language isnt to 'allegiance to the country'. Or anything like that. The language of the section is in terms of the officeholder's oath to the Constitution.

Quote:No person shall ... hold any office ... under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

I would say that pretty much trying to circumvent the Constitution, by trying to usurp the state's themselves in selecting electors, in the attempt to hold onto power is certainly a category that fits the wording.

It says that if you piss on the Constitution, then you cannot serve it.

And I agree that it will be a court matter.

I cannot tell you how many issues of Con Law and Procedure that were theory are now actual caselaw due to DJT. I think we are going to mark another first to him for his service.

Alternate electors are a long tradition. That's been pointed out to you. But you keep trying to prove you really want to be a full blooded NPC.

No they are not. You may want to go back and look that one up.

The last instance of alternate slates of electors was 1960, based on the fact that Hawaii still hadnt certified their election.

Last one before that was in the late 1800's.

Not the exact same alternate electors plan----but it certainly qualifies as a conspiracy to undermine the votes of millions of Americans. The difference between the two plans---the 2016 conspiracy actually did manage to undermine the votes of real Americans---the 2020 so called conspiracy did not. Not seeing any charges or arrests stemming from this 2016 RICO conspiricy. Where is the DOJ investigation since we all know they seem very interested in protecting democracy and the voting rights of ALL Americans. Look--I get you dont like Trump---but your far too intelligent to not see that these charges are not about protecting democracy---if anything---they are about undermining democracy in 2024. The OP is the final piece of the puzzle.


https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/e...ton-232195

Have to respectfully disagree with your premise here. The 2016 event wasnt even an 'alternate' electors plan. They are fundamentally different.

The major difference is in that the 2016 electors literally held the right to vote. Given to them by their respective states. Nothing really binds them to votes. Nothing prevents others from politicing them to change that vote. Nothing illegal in that politicing. I will agree that it is slimy, but not, repeat *not*, against the law.

In the 2020 episode, the Trump gang decided that they would present completely different slates than what the state certified. That is, presenting them as valid electors notwithstanding state certification of others. With zero state legal backing. That is --- attempted fraud.

The 2016 situation is akin attempting to persuade your friend to sell you his '81 Camaro. The 2020 situation is akin to you filing a fake registration and trying to walk off with your friend's '81 Camaro.

I agree the 2016 style is unseemly -- absolutely. Nothing prohibits someone from trying to change *that* elector's vote -- that is the vote he legally holds. It is basically fraud to present another as the legal holder of that vote. It is basically fraud to say to your VP that he should simply reject the certified votes. There is really no two ways around that.

If you think that politicing duly elected electors is the same as simply presenting yourself as an elector with something having the official backing akin to pulling a 'certification' out of a box of Capn' Crunch, well, I can assure you that they are not.

No, they are not the same. Not even in the same galaxy.

In terms of the actors, I would feel the same way about that attempt at fraud no matter who tried it, mind you.

Actually the most recent situation involving possible alternate electors was Florida in 2000. This was explained to me by Richard Alderman, the famous "People's Lawyer" who taught me constitutional law at UH--and is an admitted flaming liberal, by the way. There is a statutory provision that if a state determines that an election is too close to call, the legislature can select a slate of electors. Florida was clearly close enough to make that a reasonable assumption. So Jim Baker convinced Jeb Bush to call the republican-dominated Florida legislature into special session for that purpose. Here is how that could have played out. Suppose at some point Al Gore had won a recount (he never did) and the democrat slate was thus determined to have won the vote. Then both slates would go to Washington and Congress would have to pick, each house voting separately. The republican HOR would almost certainly have gone for the republican slate. The senate would have been a bit more complicated. It was 50-50, but Jeffords left the reublican party shortly afterward, so he might well have not voted with the republicans. On the other hand, is Joe Lieberman conflicted out? And the rules say new senate with old VP, but if it's a tie is Gore conflicted out of breaking it? Assume somehow HOR ends up going for the republican slate and senate for the democrat slate.Who breaks the deadlock? By statute, the Governor of Florida--Jeb Bush. My guess is the the Supreme Court gamed this out, decided that would be too traumatic a constitutional crisis, and shut things down with Bush the winner. When the Court did that, there was no need for the Florida legislature to act, and so the special session never convened.

(08-27-2023 03:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  It's coming. At some point they are going to push too far and the push back will be yuge.

Not happening.

(08-27-2023 09:36 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 03:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  It's coming. At some point they are going to push too far and the push back will be yuge.

Not happening.

It won't happen in Michigan, but it will in the South.