⚖️NEW: VP Pence has been sued by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), Kelli Ward and other GOP mbrs in a far-fetched bid to overturn Biden's win. Plaintiffs ask Judge Jeremy Kernodle, a Trump-appt'd fed judge in Texas, to find that Pence is authorized to pick pro-Trump electors on Jan. 6
(twitter.com)
🛑 STOP THE STEAL 🛑
Comments (16)
sorted by:
Left calls it far fetched because they are panicking
Why does he need this, he already has plenary power to pick the electors he thinks are legitimate.
Bc if the court rules in their favor he doesn't look like hes stealing the election even though he has the right to. Its optics they want it to look like it went through all the legal challenges first.
But the Dems don’t care if it looks like they stole it. Why should we care?
We're not the dems Trump is using the constitution as a weapon, he is writing the history books and every day he drags it out all the snakes show themselves.
I think part of this is unsureness about Pence from the GOP (justified or not), and they’re putting Pence on notice and making sure there’s no way he doesn’t know what he’s expected to do, and that enemies will exist for him immediately if he fucks this up.
covfefe?
Trump appointed judges have been useless so far.
Are they asking the court to merely recognize a legal authority which already exists for the VP who is also president of the Senate or to create the authority? If it is the former then why is a lawsuit needed?
What stops the Court from ruling Pence has an inherent conflict of interest since he is also the VP candidate and using this rationale conclude a VP who isn’t also a candidate has this authority to select the electors but not a VP who is also a candidate?
Just found this article it should explain: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/12/28/the-guarantee-clause-the-electoral-count-act-of-1887-the-dni-ratcliffe-report-on-foreign-interference-and-vp-mike-pence/
FIREWORKS ON JAN 6th when PENCE counts the ELECTORAL VOTE UNDER THE ***"Regularly given" *** rules as laid out in the ELECTORAL COUNT ACT see below:
"Regularly given" The phrase "regularly given" is generally understood as referring to issues regarding an elector's actual vote, rather than whether the elector has been properly appointed. It could include, for example, situations where an elector cast a particular vote because of bribery or corruption, or mistake or fraud. It may also include situations where the elector did not vote in accordance with applicable constitutional and statutory requirements.
If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the evidence mentioned in section 2 of this act to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made . . . . ; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State tribunals determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 2 of this act, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of the tribunal of such State so authorized by its laws; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.
(http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Siegel-BOOK.pdf)
Lots of luck filing a case before a kangaroo court.
Pretty risky, unless the outcome is certain. If the judge rules against it then that whole plan goes out the window with it.