WHAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICA ?
I think we have gone "disagreement" into the Twilight Zone.
Yesterday the FOURTH book detailing end of days dysfunction in the Trump presidency came out, following three that were released in the late spring and summer.
In the new book PERIL by Bob Woodward and Bob Costas we are shown a detailed memo which was created by a lawyer named John Eastman as he presented a plan to then President Trump on how he could be declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election on Jan 6, 2021
This is the six point plan in the memo
1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if
Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with
Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral
Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors,
and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This
would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States,
there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That
means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th
Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been
advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the
electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for
Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior
position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th
Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the
matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the
representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently
control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote.
President Trump is re-elected there as well.
5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon
getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their
separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on
debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining
the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully
argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules
(which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the
state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate
of electors, if they had not already done so.
6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission
– either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side
challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President
of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would
press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable
political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The
fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the
ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.
Donald Trump agreed to this plan. We know that because he told Mike Pence to listen to John Eastman explain the plan to him. Had Pence agreed to the plan, this attempt would have happened on Jan 6.
So what does this mean? Donald Trump wanted to be declared the winner of the election even though he had not proven or demonstrated an iota of election fraud. In fact he had lost in court over 60 times as regards election fraud , before Jan 6.
======================================================
Where is this story on our national media today? Why is the nation not in an uproar over this?
Today we see a new poll that says Trump has the highest approval ratings (48%) of his political career. The reason being given as speculation is that he is no longer president.
He may no longer be president but he is not receded from news by any stretch of the imagination. He goes on conservative media a couple times a week, holds rallies, and releases regular press statements (almost every day). He is playing kingmaker in the Republican Party, and currently is in a feud with Mitch McConnell as Trump tries to get one of his lackeys into Mc Connell's position.
========================
So, what is wrong with America? How can someone who tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 election be maintained as a national political leader?
I would like to hear someone try and explain this.
We can also know that the memo is real because the story has been out for 48 hours and neither Trump nor John Eastman have denied it.
Like many other fictitious stories, you posted it.
If Mike Pence had sat in Congress on Jan 6 and said we're not going to count the electoral votes of seven states because these election results are in dispute , and therefore "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected." Trump would have been the happiest man on earth at that moment , even though he would have disenfranchised tens of millions of voters without any justification whatsoever.
How does anyone in their right mind possibly defend this? Why isnt Donald Trump being attacked from all sides today?
He's a friend of Russia and Putin?
maybe youve got it
Putin doesn't have any friends. Just idiots he uses like Trump, the Clintons, and every last TDS suffering person in the world.
I, too, have a question. Why are the lawsuits and charges against Trump moving slower than molasses?
So we are playing the What If game now?
John, move on with your life, Trump is not going to become President for the 2020 Election.
Why are you afraid to denounce Trump for trying to steal the 2020 election?
I for one knew it was a fucking impossibility FFS.
So its ok for the president of the United States to try and steal an election as long as you decide that it cant be done?
It was doomed from the start John and a fools errand to begin with. I laughed all the way through it. You should probably try to do the same lest you affect your health.
It doesn't sound like it was an impossibility. If Pence had done what he was told to do we may be living in my worst nightmare
Its not foolishness like a college prank. It is evilness, and if Trump isnt punished by the American people he will try to do it again.
Pence didn't have the balls and anyway he knew it was wrong.
I'm quite thankful that he did the right thing that day. I say it took balls to stand up to his Bully of a Boss
Yeah, TG offered a speculation: even included an operative 'may'. Do you have a problem with people speculating? Are you surprised that speculation is used in discussions?
What point are you trying (and failing) to make?
That prick Pence - I forget who he called that day - to ask what he should do - DON'T DO WHAT TRUMPTURD AND EASTMAN WANT YOU TO DO YOU PRICK!
Honestly, prick Pence has no balls. Someone please help me and remind me who prick Pence talked to that day to ask them what he should do? NOT WHAT EASTMAN AND TRUMPTURD TOLD YOU TO DO.
I did not make a point, I asked you to be clear on the point you were making.
Based on your response, it would seem you did not actually have a point but were simply trolling TG.
What's wrong with America is trumpturd and his supporters.
Who was it prick Pence talked to that day and basically asked what he should do?
WTF should he do? Not go along with whatshisname, that's what
It's obviously laughably bad legal advice and misrepresents the situation as no states elected multiple slates of electors, as happened in 1876.
. Though I guess, in the world of a "living Constitution" you can argue that the Constitution magically evolved to give the Vice President that power.
More pointless Trump Trivia
Your comments become more irrelevant and worthless every day.
www.washingtonpost.com /politics/trump-executive-privilege-subpoenas/2021/09/23/1c163312-1ba7-11ec-8380-5fbadbc43ef8_story.html
Biden White House leans toward releasing information about Trump and Jan. 6 attack, setting off legal and political showdown
Tom Hamburger, Jacqueline Alemany 9-12 minutes 9/23/2021
The White House is leaning toward releasing information to Congress about what Donald Trump and his aides were doing during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol despite the former president’s objections — a decision that could have significant political and legal ramifications.
Trump has said he will cite “executive privilege” to block information requests from the House select committee investigating the events of that day, banking on a legal theory that has successfully allowed presidents and their aides to avoid or delay congressional scrutiny for decades, including during the Trump administration.
But President Biden’s White House plans to err on the side of disclosure given the gravity of the events of Jan. 6, according to two people familiar with discussions who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions.
In response to questions about White House deliberations over what information to release, Biden spokesman Michael J. Gwin said the president views the attack on the Capitol as “a dark stain on our country’s history” and is “deeply committed to ensuring that something like that can never happen again, and he supports a thorough investigation.”
Members of the investigative committee argue that Trump no longer enjoys the protection of executive privilege, encouraging the White House to push aside institutional concerns about sharing information with Congress and aid the panel in an investigation focused on what Democrats and a handful of Republicans have called an assault on democracy.
“It’s not really relevant because there’s no president involved — there’s no such thing as a former president’s executive privilege,” said Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), a committee member who teaches constitutional law. “That’s extremely dilute and not really relevant.”
What Trump was doing while the attack was occurring and who he was speaking with are among the big, unanswered questions concerning the assault on the Capitol.
The debate over the validity of his executive privilege claims comes as the committee is moving into a new, more aggressive phase of its investigation. Having requested material from telecom, social media companies and the White House — and receiving some response — it is now looking at how best to compel testimony and documents from those reluctant to participate.
Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) said this week that his panel will soon issue subpoenas to witnesses and organizations, adding that the committee has started scheduling closed door testimony with cooperative witnesses. A preliminary list of subpoenas is expected to be released by the committee as soon as Thursday and may include prominent Trump allies and White House officials.
Trump has derided the committee’s work as partisan and is promising to fight its effort to collect information and testimony related to the attack.
“The highly partisan, Communist-style ‘select committee’ has put forth an outrageously broad records request that lacks both legal precedent and legislative merit,” Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich said in a statement. “Executive privilege will be defended, not just on behalf of President Trump and his administration, but also on behalf of the Office of the President of the United States and the future of our nation.”
In response to the House panel’s request, the National Archives has already identified hundreds of pages of documents from the Trump White House relevant to its inquiry. As required by statute, the material is being turned over to the Biden White House and to Trump’s lawyers for review.
The committee’s Aug. 25 letter to the National Archives was both sweeping and detailed, asking for “all documents and communications within the White House on January 6, 2021, relating in any way” to the events of that day. They include examining whether the White House or Trump allies worked to delay or halt the counting of electoral votes and whether there was discussion of impeding the peaceful transfer of power.
The letter asked for call logs, schedules and meetings for a large group, including Trump’s adult children, son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and first lady Melania Trump as well as a host of aides and advisers, such as his attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani.
The committee has focused, in part, on seeking information about whether the Trump White House and members of Congress played any role in encouraging the demonstrations, which interrupted the constitutionally mandated certification of electoral votes and unleashed a series of violent confrontations with the U.S. Capitol Police.
So far, more than 650 people have been charged with crimes in connection with the violent demonstrations that delayed that vote. Many were charged with obstructing a federal procedure and for knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building. Documents and testimony could show whether White House officials and members of Congress encouraged or supported those actions, congressional staffers said.
White House documents requested by the panel are identified by National Archives personnel and then sent to Biden and Trump lawyers. The first tranche was sent out Aug. 31, according to a person familiar with the transfer.
Trump has 30 days following the delivery of the documents to decide whether to object to their release, according to the statute. Even if he opposes turning them over, the Biden White House has decision-making authority and can release them, over Trump’s objections, after an additional 60 days has elapsed. Trump’s remaining option would be to go to court to try to halt the release, legal advisers said.
While Trump has struck a defiant tone, his options may be limited if Biden decides to handover the information the former president says should be protected, according to several legal experts — including those who have reviewed similar requests in the past.
“The law we have is not favorable to the former president,” said Bob Bauer, who served as White House counsel under President Barack Obama. “A former president has a chance to review the materials, to raise issues of privilege and if the former and the current presidents cannot reach some agreement, to take the dispute to the courts.”
Bauer added that while an inquiry into a former president is unique, legal precedents suggest disclosure of the information Congress is seeking.
“The circumstances here — the former president acting at the time in his capacity as a candidate seeking to challenge his defeat at the polls — make this uphill battle much, much tougher,” he said.
Norm Eisen, a former Obama appointee, who advised the first House impeachment inquiry of Trump, said the former president’s power to assert executive privilege has weakened since he left the White House.
“The executive privilege stonewalling that Trump used while he was in office won’t work anymore,” Eisen said, noting that the current president — not the former — has the real decision-making power.
A former federal judge who worked on executive privilege issues in the Ronald Reagan White House and the George H.W. Bush Justice Department pointed out that privilege requests do not typically attempt to shield information about potential wrongdoing.
“With a few notable exceptions, the historical practice has been for Presidents to avoid asserting Executive Privilege to protect from disclosure information that suggests wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing by a President and/or his advisers,” J. Michael Luttig, a former U.S. federal judge, said in an email.
Several cases involving requests for tapes and other records from the Richard Nixon White House provide precedent for release of presidential records when requested by Congress or government agencies.
In 1977, the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services , rejected Nixon’s privilege claims about White House tapes and documents, embracing the idea that executive privilege “is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic.”
Legal experts also pointed to recent private talks involving Trump officials and Congress that could provide a path to a resolution that does not involve going to court. They cite the negotiations that occurred between lawyers for Trump, the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating claims that a Trump Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, had sought to deploy department resources after the election to back Trump’s claims of massive voting fraud.
In the end, the Biden Justice Department waived executive privilege, and two of Trump’s top former Justice Department officials, Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue, sat for interviews with the Senate Judiciary Committee, providing detailed accounts of what happened during the post-election period.
The decisions Biden and Trump make about the current records and interview requests will be momentous, said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University who has written about the protection of White House documents and previously argued that Democrats’ impeachment efforts against Trump were a misguided use of congressional power.
“There is an unbroken tradition of deference by the incumbent presidents to their predecessors,” Turley said. “In the past, incumbent presidents would generally support their predecessors in restricting access, despite partisan differences. It appears we may be poised here to shatter that tradition.”
Josh Dawsey contributed to this report.
[deleted]
Why would you call an article about Trump wanting to steal the election on Jan 6 "hysteria" ?
[Deleted]
Because it is.
I hate to break this to you, but we're 8 months into the Biden Administration. The big orange boogeyman is fading into the distance, just like every other election loser before him.
[Deleted]
Trump is currently running for president. Most likely he will be the Republican candidate. Millions of morons will vote for him and its not inconceivable he could win.
So we will possibly elect a president who was last seen in the White House trying to deprive tens of millions of people of their vote.
Not a word of what I just said is false.
[Deleted]
Is he? In what states has he filed? When did he announce his candidacy?
Unlikely. The last person to be re-nominated after losing a presidential election was over 50 years ago.
It's not inconceivable, but it's certainly improbable. And having a tantrum because the rest of us aren't hysterical about something three years away that probably won't happen anyway is a bit batshit.
Except most of it.
He isn't actually running, probably wouldn't win the nomination, and almost surely wouldn't win the election
That's what was said in 2016. Like John, I plan on doing my damnedest to make sure that nightmare doesn't happen again. If you want to relive 2016 - 2020 all over again, then keep sitting on your ass doing nothing besides criticizing John's dogged determination to keep that moron out of the White House.
Yes it was. But surely Democrats will have a better candidate. It seems impossible they could have a worse candidate.
Well, you enjoy your three year ride on the hysteria bandwagon with Henny Penny.
We haven't even had the midterms yet, FFS.