User Controls
THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-11-03 at 5 PM UTCPeople
New Report Details How Donald Trump Resisted Pleas to Stop Capitol Rioters: 'People Will Die'
Virginia Chamlee
As his own supporters breached the U.S. Capitol and began ransacking the seat of American democracy on Jan. 6, then-President Donald Trump remained holed up in his dining room. There, he watched the increasingly violent scene play out on television and resisted calls from those closest to him to urge the rioters to disperse, instead stewing over his recent electoral loss.
That's the scene painted in a sprawling new hour-by-hour investigation by The Washington Post, which retraces how Trump resisted the efforts of everyone from his chief of staff to his daughter and adviser Ivanka, who urged him to do something to put a halt to the mayhem.
Before the rioting broke out, President Trump had publicly pressured his own vice president, Mike Pence, to somehow use his position to overturn the 2020 election results when Congress met to ratify now-President Joe Biden's victory on Jan. 6.
Speaking at a rally held shortly before before the mob at the Capitol turned violent, Trump encouraged his supporters to march to where Congress had convened. Though he said they should be peaceful, he also said they needed to "fight like hell" and risked losing their country.
The rest is history: At the Capitol, a swarm of Trump supporters overwhelmed law enforcement and occupied the Capitol complex, forcing Pence and other lawmakers to be quickly evacuated and placed under lockdown.
According to the Post's new reporting, as the situation began to spiral many in Trump's orbit tried to reach the president to encourage him to put out a statement condemning the violence.
Among those who attempted to get the attention of the president were spokeswoman Alyssa Farah, whom the Post reports called and texted her then-boss, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to tell Trump to denounce the chaos before it got worst.
"If someone doesn't say something, people will die," one of Farah's messages read, per the Post.
The paper reports that Pence's national security adviser, Keith Kellogg, made a similar entreaty, at one point telling Trump: "You need to tweet something. … Once mobs get moving, you can't turn them off. Once they start rolling, it's hard to bring it under control. But you've got to get on top of this and say something."
Ivanka, meanwhile, went back and forth between her own office on the second floor of the West Wing and the president's dining room, working with Meadows to try and persuade him to get the rioters under control, according to the Post.
As the rioters breached the building, Trump was confronted by others, like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, whom several outlets have reported shouted at the president over the phone to call off the rioters.
Trump wasn't entirely silent during the first hour after the rioters breached the building. He published two tweets — one calling on the group to "stay peaceful!" and another requesting "no violence!" — though those closest to him thought that the statements didn't go far enough.
Still, Trump resisted calls to release something more strongly-worded, even when adviser Jason Miller drafted two tweets from the president's account falsely claiming that "crazed leftists" were to blame for the violence. When asked about posting either of those drafts, Trump said no to both, the Post reports.
Trump still had not publicly addressed the nation at 4:05 p.m., when President-elect Biden spoke publicly from Wilmington, Delaware.
As the Post reports, senators watching Biden's speech from a secure room at the Capitol complex applauded when it aired.
"It was like, wow, we have a leader who said what needed to be said," Republican Sen. Mitt Romney told the paper.
Trump's first speech came just minutes later, posting on Twitter at 4:17 p.m. As the Post reports, it required at least three takes — Trump kept going off-script, telling those ransacking the Capitol, "We love you. You're very special," and urging them to "go home."
At least five people died in connection with the rioting. Numerous people have since been charged.
By 6 p.m., the situation had been mostly contained and the National Guard had moved in. Trump, though, continued to send messages that even his allies — like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham — would later call "bad."
"These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long," Trump tweeted at 6:01 p.m, in a post that helped prompt his ban from the platform. "Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"
Over the next few hours, lawmakers came back to the building, and Pence began presiding over the vote to certify Biden's electoral win. Even then, Trump was not dissuaded. Per the Post, an attorney advising him emailed Pence's counsel "around 9 p.m. to try to convince the vice president to move to not certify the election results."
Pence's attorney reportedly did not respond to the email.
Since leaving office in January, Trump has continued to falsely claim the election was stolen from him, even doubling down on his blame of Pence in a statement released after the riots, claiming that the former vice president lacked "courage."
Pence, meanwhile, has said of the two: "I don't know if we'll ever see eye-to-eye on that day."
A Trump spokeswoman did not respond to PEOPLE's request for comment on the Post report. According to the Post, his office dismissed their findings as "fake news" and said the rioters were "agitators" unconnected to him. -
2021-11-03 at 5:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ As soon as the ruling comes out, the process to reverse the electoral count commences. Nothing can stop it.
Could you please have our residing Constitutional scholar, Weasel, point out to us where there is any mention in the Constitution of the ability to overturn the Electoral College votes?
Thank you. I'll eagerly await this disclosure...but I ain't gonna hold my breath! -
2021-11-03 at 5:14 PM UTC
-
2021-11-03 at 5:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT that is the chat in my governors live you tube video. I rip them new assholes every week
I've got news for you.
The one and only YouTube video that you have ever posted that I've watched was of you trying to wrap yourself around a tree on your snow gnat.
Gives a new meaning to my dear sainted father's expression of "Circumcising a gnat". Don't leave any foreskin on the bark! -
2021-11-03 at 5:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 Could you please have our residing Constitutional scholar, Weasel, point out to us where there is any mention in the Constitution of the ability to overturn the Electoral College votes?
Thank you. I'll eagerly await this disclosure…but I ain't gonna hold my breath!
The Constitution clearly states that the certification of electoral votes is solely the power of the legislature. They can certify and decertify at their whim. -
2021-11-03 at 5:36 PM UTC
-
2021-11-03 at 5:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Solstice So November 25th Biden is out and Trump goes back in?
On Nov 23rd, the Supreme Court rules that the 2020 election was stolen. Then the decertification process for several states begins, with Biden out and Trump in shortly thereafter. What kind of an idiot thinks you could steal a national election and walk away happily ever after? -
2021-11-03 at 5:40 PM UTC
-
2021-11-03 at 5:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ On Nov 23rd, the Supreme Court rules that the 2020 election was stolen. Then the decertification process for several states begins, with Biden out and Trump in shortly thereafter. What kind of an idiot thinks you could steal a national election and walk away happily ever after?
That idiot Donald J. Trump, that's who. -
2021-11-03 at 5:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 Could you please have our residing Constitutional scholar, Weasel, point out to us where there is any mention in the Constitution of the ability to overturn the Electoral College votes?
Thank you. I'll eagerly await this disclosure…but I ain't gonna hold my breath!
Let us instead consult well known constitutional lawyer and Michigan AG candidate Matt Deperno.Memorandum
Date: September 23, 2021
To: Sen. Wendy Rogers
From: Matt DePerno
Subject: Final Memo regarding Authority Over Elections and Electors
Can a State Legislature recall the state electors or decertify a national election upon proof of fraud in the election? The Answer is "Yes."
On August 14, 2021, I presented a memo to Sen. Wendy Rogers titled "Preliminary Memo regarding Authority Over Elections and Electors." That memo concluded that a State Legislature has the authority to recall the state elector or decertify a national election upon proof of fraud in the election. Importantly, this does not require proof of "all of the fraud."
On September 16, 2021, Ken Behringer prepared a memo to Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita that asked the question "Is there a mechanism to decertify a presidential election?" (the "Behringer Memo")
The Behringer memo concluded there is no mechanism to decertify a presidential election outside of 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 15.
This memo disagrees with the Behringer Memo for the following reasons: (1) Sec. 5 is limited to the controversy of any appointment of electors and does not address decertification of an election; (2) Sec. 15 is limited to the counting of electoral votes and objections on January 6 and does not address decertification of an election based on fraud; (3) the Behringer Memo does not address decertification of an election upon proof of fraud; and (4) the Behringer Memo relies on Trump v Kemp, 511 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (N.D. Ga. 2021) which deals only with court authority to decertify an election (and only in the context of Secs. 5 and 15) but which does not deal with the State Legislature's authority to decertify an election.
In light of the Behringer Memo, we ask again whether a State Legislature can recall the state electors or decertify a national election upon proof of fraud in the election? After again considering the constitutional authority of the State Legislature, the Constitution itself, and U.S. Supreme Court authority and precedent, the answer is definitively "Yes."
States have authority over their elections, including national elections. "Congress has never undertaken to interfere with the manner of appointing electors, or, where (according to the new general usage) the mode of appointment prescribed by the law of the State is election by the people, to regulate the conduct of such election, or to punish any fraud in voting for electors; but has left these matters to the control of the States." In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 380 (1890) (emphasis added).
The United States Supreme Court opinions discussed herein are based on the overarching principles that the Constitution reserves to the national government only those expressly enumerated powers in Article I. All other powers not specifically reserved are delegated to the States and to the People. Indeed, "[a]ll powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State." See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 848 (1995).
The Ninth and Tenth Amendment work in tandem to consecrate this broad delegation of power to the States. In Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. _____, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324-25 (2020) "Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors' voting discretion." (emphasis added). Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution's text and the Nation's history both support allowing a State to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee – and the state voters' choice – for President. Indeed, the Behringer Memo discusses this authority in broad strokes through the discussion of sections 5 and 15. However, Sec. 5 deals only with the controversies as to the appointment of presidential electors and does not address issues of fraud that subsequently arise. Likewise, Sec. 15 deals only with counting of electoral votes and objections as of January 6 and again, does not address issues of fraud that is subsequently demonstrated. To suggest that all issues of fraud in the November 3, 2020 election must be presented to Congress by January 6, 2021 pursuant to sections 5 and 15 in order to be considered fails to recognize the complexity of the issue. It also suggests that all issues of fraud related to elections are somehow codified in sections 5 and 15, which is not only false, but also fails to give proper weight to the authority presented in the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court authority and precedent.
As we know, the Constitution is "barebones about electors." Chiafalo, supra at 2324-35. As it should be. The residual powers are left to the States. The Behringer Memo addresses Article II (only in the context sections 5 and 15). However, Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, as many electors as it has Senators and Representatives. There are no restrictions or limitations.
The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. "Appointments and procedures and . . . that is all." Chiafolo, supra at 2315 (emphasis added).
In prior cases, the Court has stated that Article II, §1's appointments power gives the States full authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. The Court has described that clause as "conveying the broadest power of determination . . . " McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27 (1892). See also Chiafalo, supra at 2324.
It would be meaningless if after giving full authority to the States over presidential electors, the State Legislature could not, upon a proper showing, recall those electors to decertify a fraudulent election. It would be equally meaningless to suggest that all fraud must be discovered and presented by January 6. As the Supreme Court said in Chiafolo, supra, the State has full authority absent some other constitutional constraint.
As far as the national government (and Constitution) is concerned, i.e., federal law, there are no such constraints. "Congress . . . has left these matters to the control of the States." In re Green, supra at 380. Therefore, each State Legislature has the power to recall electors and decertify their vote upon demonstrable proof of fraud. Indeed, this is the only way the State can guarantee that the People are represented. The Federal Government "is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). "[T]he powers delegated by the . . . Constitution to the federal government are few and defined," while those that belong to the States "remain . . . numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, p. 292 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). Thus, "[w]here the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power[,] that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication," the power is "either delegated to the state government or retained by the people." See Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) (stating that the Federal Government's powers under the Constitution must be "expressly given, or given by necessary implication").
For an added measure of assurance in the latter regard, it is declared that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People." U.S. Const., amend. IX (emphasis added). It was universally agreed by the Framers that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. "The [Ninth] Amendment . . . was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected." I Annals of Congress 439 (Gales and Seaton ed. 1834). See also II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (5th ed. 1891), pp. 626-627. As "it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect . . . effect should be given to all the words it uses." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174 (1803). See also Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 229 (1926). And, indeed, a right to political affiliation and political choice has been addressed as protected, at least in part, by this amendment. United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95 (1947). This includes, of course, the fundamental right to vote. Id. See also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 560 (1964).
The Behringer Memo ignores this long history of cases, but instead focuses on Trump v Kemp, supra, by quoting "this Court finds no grounds upon which to independently order the decertification of Georgia's election results" (relying again on Sec. 15). However, the Behringer Memo fails to recognize that Trump v Kemp focused exclusively on a court's role (i.e. the judicial branch) in enforcement of the rules for appointment and objection to electors. Indeed, Trump v Kemp did not address in any way either the court's role or the State Legislature's role in recall of electors or decertification of an election upon a showing of fraud subsequent to January 6.
Indeed, this memo address that issue. That the right to vote is the fundamental and primary right among all other fundamental rights, enumerated or not, is evident in the fact it is self-executing. Infringement upon it cannot occur under the Constitution if the government is, in fact, one that is duly and legally chosen by the People. Any government that asserts a mandate to rule on the basis of fraud or illegality effectuates an instant infringement on the sovereign's will, of necessity, has no legitimacy. It is as violent a usurpation as would be the direct use of force to suppress the People. Only, it is more sinister and insidious. It is at once an uncontestable rejection of the values and ideals of the People and a silent assassination of their collective right to express them.
To countenance a fraudulent election is to deny the inherent sovereignty retained by the People to govern themselves. To allow one such as this to pass as valid with the level of skullduggery and fraud evident to everyone who cares to look and who is not blinded by the conspired obfuscation foist upon them by bureaucratic functionaries, technocrats, subversives in both political parties, and their corporate and foreign donors, and those who control, to the great detriment of public debate and discourse, the information from social media all the way to the transmission of the "news" to households across the nation, is to leave the sovereign citizens of this country little choice. Ignoring this treasonous crime destroys any remnants of faith in the proper and orderly functioning of a government that is supposed to serve them.
If the choice of the People has been adulterated by fraud, the Legislative branch and the People have a right, an obligation, and, indeed, a duty to call it out to ensure preservation of the Republic that is guaranteed to them by the Constitution; or indeed, to dissolve and abolish it altogether. The Declaration of Independence, Second Paragraph (July 4, 1776) (emphasis added). Indeed, the Behringer Memo suggests that fraud must be ignored and the Republic destroyed if such fraud is not discovered prior to January 6. Such a conclusion ignores the principles of the Founders and precedent of federal law as described herein.
Preservation of the Republic can be done by legislative decertification under the principle of the Tenth Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the broad discretion states have over electors. The state constitutions give broad authority to the People to recall all publicly elected officials. Of course, this extends to any public official charged with a duty to represent their will. And, this must be done, for under the Ninth Amendment, if the fundamental right to vote is to be protected, every illegally cast or counted vote must not be allowed to unconstitutionally disenfranchise the legal voter's fundamental, constitutional rights.
These rights that reside in the People are necessarily delegated to the State Legislature in the event that the latter must act sua sponte to correct a fraudulently held election. After all, the Legislature is the lawmaking authority in the state. Absent any restraints in the state or federal constitution (and there are none), it must act in the stead of the people where there is no actuating power given to the People under state law. In other words, the Legislature itself does not have to pass a state law to exercise its constitutional (both state and federal) authority.
A legislature's determination to decertify the votes cast by the electors or to otherwise decertify an election on demonstration of fraud in the election itself is nothing more than the Legislature's use of its reserved sovereign powers under the Tenth Amendment to protect those fundamental rights and privileges reserved to the People by the Ninth Amendment.
Indeed, the failure to do so would be a violation of the Legislature's role as a co-equal branch of government.
Hmm, look like is yes -
2021-11-03 at 5:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ On Nov 23rd, the Supreme Court rules that the 2020 election was stolen. Then the decertification process for several states begins, with Biden out and Trump in shortly thereafter. What kind of an idiot thinks you could steal a national election and walk away happily ever after?
Cool, see ya on the 24th for the next iteration of your delusional bullshit. -
2021-11-03 at 5:48 PM UTC
-
2021-11-03 at 5:50 PM UTC
-
2021-11-03 at 5:51 PM UTC
-
2021-11-03 at 5:55 PM UTC
-
2021-11-03 at 5:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 Wrong because the next step by the US Senate used the State's previous certification to certify the election on a national level.
You know more than a constitutional attorney? Or more like you didn't understand the memo because there was no talking head to tell what to think about it. You and Technologash are perfect examples of why, in a recent NBC poll, only 29% of the country thinks we are "on the right track" as a nation. Becasue roughly a third of America is brainwashed by weaponized globalists controlled media and will not accept any fact that disrupt the narrative they are being spoon fed 24 hours a day. -
2021-11-03 at 5:58 PM UTCTruth hurts, huh?
Wasn't that an attorney who wrote up the memo Trump tried selling to Pence telling him he had the authority to overturn an election BY HIMSELF that he refused to go along with? -
2021-11-03 at 6:01 PM UTCEven CNN is turning on their own radical left whackadoodles. That's how far gone they are, and how badly they've lost.
-
2021-11-03 at 6:03 PM UTCIf you're going to make a blanket statement, try to back it up, K?
"Baffle 'em with bullshit" only works on weak-minded Republicans. -
2021-11-03 at 6:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 Get them to promise that they will leave NIS if Trump isn't reinstated by Nov. 24th.
Yeah, that should solve the problem!
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
They would never do that, they'll just move the goalposts again and say it's happening in December, or January, etc etc.
We will be three administrations into the future and these niggers will still be talking about Trump coming back
