• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
What the Senators are doing is not legal.

They cannot object in the case that only one set of electoral votes is received from the states. I can't remember the exact phrasing of the law, although we covered it just a few days ago. I think it is "regularly cast" or something like that.
Click to expand...

The phrase is "regularly given". My understanding (I'm not a lawyer but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express) is that "regularly given" means that an elector voted in accordance with the laws of the state that he/she was elected from, e.g., voted for the popular vote winner in the state if the state law requires electors to vote for the popular vote winner in that state. So there will be no grounds for raising an objection based on votes being "regularly given" unless there are faithless electors.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
The phrase is "regularly given". My understanding (I'm not a lawyer but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express) is that "regularly given" means that an elector voted in accordance with the laws of the state that he/she was elected from, e.g., voted for the popular vote winner in the state if the state law requires electors to vote for the popular vote winner in that state. So there will be no grounds for raising an objection based on votes being "regularly given" unless there are faithless electors.
Click to expand...

The issue of whether a vote by a faithless elector is "regularly given" was the subject of an objection in 1969. Both Houses voted to accept the vote. That essentially established precedent. All votes by faithless electors have been accepted.

The term "regularly given" means that the elector was not threatened or bribed into voting for some one, or someone impersonated an elector, or forged a signature or certificate, and things of that nature.

The issue of undue influence on electors (back before many state's had laws requiring electors to vote for their pledged candidate was a concern in the 1800s. That is one of the reasons why the electors meet in each state and not in Washington; Congress was concerned a mob could form in Washington to try to force electors to vote a certain way. That also influenced the date of the meeting of creditors. Congress set the date and moved it closer to the election date in order to minimize the time between appointment and the meeting in order to reduce risk of undue influence.
 
Firestone said:
Lordy, there are tapes!

Trump yesterday asked Georgia Secretary of State to "find" him enough votes to win the State.
In hour-long call, Trump said "There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated"


https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...a64f5f-8c3c-490f-af34-618ccea732d7_video.html
Click to expand...

Good gravy! Is he on drugs? Seriously. He is slurring his speech and stumbling over words. The repetition of words, broken sentences, awkward pauses, and burst of excitement when he has a knew thought is not typical of his speech patterns but is typical of someone under the influence.
 
I wonder if Trump understood that he was being recorded, and that the recordings were part of a public record.

I only listened to the four minutes or so linked above, but the phone call was over an hour long.

I don't think Trump actually crossed the line into prosecutable territory on this phone call. Like he so often does, he hints that he wants the other person to do something illegal, but he doesn't quite come out and say it, so prosecution is impossible. If the other guy actually does the illegal thing Trump wanted him to do, Trump denies it and leaves the other guy holding the bag. See Cohen, Michael. Is it impeachable? That's a political decision. It isn't going to happen.

As the clock ticks down, the chance of an "emergency impeachment" seems less and less likely. Pity. Four years ago I predicted he would be the first president impeached and convicted, because he wouldn't be able to follow the law for four years. It looks like I will probably be wrong about this. His legal transgressions have been just close enough to give Republicans enough cover to vote for him. It doesn't seem likely he will finally cross the line in the remaining two and a half weeks.
 
Oh, to be in the halls of Congress at this moment...

I'd love to hear what both sides are saying to each other. And the White House staff -- "How tf are we gonna spin this?"

Answer: He was just being sarcastic.

I'm glad that Georgia has a one-party-permission law on recording calls. And I'm enjoying seeing the trends craziness on Twitter.

But... I'm afraid of what The PDJT is going to do now to try for a distraction. It's gotta be something really big.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I wonder if Trump understood that he was being recorded, and that the recordings were part of a public record.

I only listened to the four minutes or so linked above, but the phone call was over an hour long.
....
Click to expand...

He was speaking to the Georgia SecState and his counsel. He would have no reason to think they were recording him. Some commentators have made the point that Georgia is a "one-party recording" state, which means that the person making the tape doesn't have to tell anyone else.

It continues to surprise me that we're not hearing more Trump tapes, both of his calls and even of his rants at White House meetings. Apparently staffers were required to lock up their cell phones when meeting with Trump, but it certainly would have been possible to sneak in other recording devices.
 
alfaniner said:
Oh, to be in the halls of Congress at this moment...

I'd love to hear what both sides are saying to each other. And the White House staff -- "How tf are we gonna spin this?"

Answer: He was just being sarcastic.

I'm glad that Georgia has a one-party-permission law on recording calls. And I'm enjoying seeing the trends craziness on Twitter.
Click to expand...

On CSPAN-2 during the swearing in of Senators I think I can just barely hear coming from down the halls the howling of Ted Cruz and..is that..a giggle from Mitch McConnell?
 
alfaniner said:
Oh, to be in the halls of Congress at this moment...

I'd love to hear what both sides are saying to each other. And the White House staff -- "How tf are we gonna spin this?"

Answer: He was just being sarcastic.

I'm glad that Georgia has a one-party-permission law on recording calls. And I'm enjoying seeing the trends craziness on Twitter.

But... I'm afraid of what The PDJT is going to do now to try for a distraction. It's gotta be something really big.
Click to expand...

It might be even simpler. "We know that the Trump votes exist. The President was simply asking the Secretary of State to review the records to find out what happened to them, and find them so that an accurate vote total can be reported."

Only a complete moron would believe the spin, but that could be said about pretty much everything that has happened at least since the Saturday after election day, and a whole lot of things that have happened in the last five years.

ETA: And, to be fair to Trump, I don't think he was deliberately asking the Secretary of State to break the law. I think the thought in Trump's head was more along the lines of "Waaah!!! Waaah!!! I won!!!! They cheated!!!! It's not FAIR!!!!! I hate you! Everybody hates you!"
 
Last edited:
DevilsAdvocate said:
The issue of whether a vote by a faithless elector is "regularly given" was the subject of an objection in 1969. Both Houses voted to accept the vote. That essentially established precedent. All votes by faithless electors have been accepted.

The term "regularly given" means that the elector was not threatened or bribed into voting for some one, or someone impersonated an elector, or forged a signature or certificate, and things of that nature.
Click to expand...

Note to self: as soon as the pandemic subsides, make a reservation at a Holiday Inn Express. The effect apparently wears off with time.
 
Meadmaker said:
I wonder if Trump understood that he was being recorded, and that the recordings were part of a public record.

I only listened to the four minutes or so linked above, but the phone call was over an hour long.

I don't think Trump actually crossed the line into prosecutable territory on this phone call. Like he so often does, he hints that he wants the other person to do something illegal, but he doesn't quite come out and say it, so prosecution is impossible. If the other guy actually does the illegal thing Trump wanted him to do, Trump denies it and leaves the other guy holding the bag. See Cohen, Michael. Is it impeachable? That's a political decision. It isn't going to happen.
As the clock ticks down, the chance of an "emergency impeachment" seems less and less likely. Pity. Four years ago I predicted he would be the first president impeached and convicted, because he wouldn't be able to follow the law for four years. It looks like I will probably be wrong about this. His legal transgressions have been just close enough to give Republicans enough cover to vote for him. It doesn't seem likely he will finally cross the line in the remaining two and a half weeks.
Click to expand...

It's clearly abuse of power just as his actions were clearly obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report.

I'm reading Cohen's book now and what Trump does in that recording is exactly how he describes Trump's method of operation: he never comes out and says directly what he wants done but does so indirectly so he has plausible deniability. He gave Raffensperger the playbook on what he needed to claim: shredded ballots in Fulton county, Dominion voting machine being altered/moved out, how many votes to find, etc. But he says that's what he "heard" was being done and was found and what happened. Oh, yeah...he's one seasoned con man.

I can't wait to hear more of this hour long tape and to hear the defense his lapdogs are going to come up with.
 
Tero said:
(Minnesota) Rep. Dean Phillips
@RepDeanPhillips
16h ago Tweeted
Members of Congress elected on the very same ballots to which they plan to object on Jan 6 should refuse to be sworn-in tomorrow, for if Trump’s defeat isn’t legitimate, how can their victories be legitimate?
Click to expand...

Nancy Pelosi has agreed to provisionally swear in a representative from Iowa who won her election by 6 votes. However, there are still 22 ballots being contested.

She hasn't said "delay 10 days for an audit"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom