Former Vice President Mike Pence is making a novel constitutional argument in opposing the recent grand jury subpoena for testimony from Special Counsel Jack Smith. He is claiming that, as President of the Senate, he falls under the protections of the “Speech and Debate Clause” like members of Congress. It is an unresolved question and he could ultimately prevail. However, I am not confident that the claim would bar the subpoena in its entirety.
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 states that members of Congress “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
The Supreme Court has held that “to the extent that [congressional officers] serve legislative functions, the performance of which would be immune . . . if done by Congressmen, these officials enjoy the protection[s] of the Speech or Debate Clause.” Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 320 (1973).
The challenge could force greater clarity on the bifurcated role of a vice president as a member of both branches. As President of the Senate, Pence does vote and engage in legislative business. That certainly included the deliberations on January 6th when some members were opposing certification — a move that Pence correctly opposed.
Smith would have to argue against the Justice Department itself in seeking to compel some of this testimony. The Justice Department has maintained this broader definition in prior litigation declared in 2021 that Pence was shielded by the “speech or debate” clause in a civil lawsuit.
I believe that he is protected on his legislative functions and deliberations. However, that does not mean that he cannot be compelled to testify on matters outside of those functions. While he can try to raise other privileges, Smith can seek his testimony on the non-legislative matters.
That distinction was drawn in Fulton County v. Graham after Graham invoked the clause to decline to testify on the Georgia allegations of election interference. The court decided that Graham could be compelled to testify so long as investigators avoided discussing his legislative responsibilities. The court held:
not “everything a Member of Congress may regularly do” is a “legislative act within the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause”—the Clause “has not been extended beyond the legislative sphere,” and the fact that “Senators generally perform certain acts in their official capacity as Senators does not necessarily make all such acts legislative in nature.” Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 313 (1973); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 624–25 (1972). The Supreme Court has warned that it is not “sound or wise” to “extend the privilege beyond its intended scope, its literal language, and its history, to include all things in any way related to the legislative process.” Brewster, 408 U.S. at 516. One reason is obvious: “Given such a sweeping reading, we have no doubt that there are few activities in which a legislator engages that he would be unable somehow to ‘relate’ to the legislative process.” Id. Activities that fall outside the Clause’s scope include, for example, “cajoling” executive officials and delivering speeches outside of Congress.
It is not clear why Smith would invite such litigation, which could take years to hash out in the courts. However, Pence has a good argument in my view for narrowing the scope of such testimony.
Jonathan: If you are interested in the Pence case you also should be discussing the really important case down in Fulton County, Georgia where Trump is being investigated for possible crimes involving his attempt to overturn the 2020 election there. The special grand jury has issued its final report and Judge Robert McBurney announced yesterday he is going to release part of the report to the public–of particular interest is one section dealing with whether certain witnesses lied under oath. Most of the report will remain under seal until the prosecutor, Fani Willis, decides on whether to bring criminal charges. 75 witnesses testified before the grand jury–among them was Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn and Lindsey Graham. All three fought their subpoenas. Lindsey Graham went all the way to the Supreme Court. All lost their court challenges.
What kind of reasonable inferences can we draw from Judge McBurney’s ruling? Indictments are coming and one of those could be Donald Trump. Why do I say this? Because McBurney specifically mentions a roster of individuals (names not mentioned) that should, or should not be charged, and then goes on to state that the “final report includes recommendations involving individuals who never appeared before the grand jury and so had no opportunity. limited or not, to be heard”. Who did not appear before the grand jury? Donald Trump. McBurney said his decision not to release the entire report was because Willis is still investigating and the Judge wanted to protect the “due process” rights of potential defendants. Another indication indictments are coming.
If certain witnesses(like Rudy Giuliani) lied before the grand jury they have big problems. If Willis can prove a witness lied she can charge them with perjury, obstruction, accessory after the fact–and even bring charges of being part of Trump’s conspiracy to to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. Willis will then have leverage over any witness who lied before the grand jury and compel them to cooperate. That’s bad news for Trump.
I have said before this is the big case to watch closely because it would be the first case where Trump is criminally charged. Except for an earlier column about the “fairness” of the 2020 election in Fulton County you have not discussed the Willis criminal investigation. Fox5 Atlanta did cover the story but you have not. Why is that?
The entire premise of the Fulton County investigation is obvious nonsense, so the whole exercise was illegitimate and anything that emerges from it will forever be illegitimate. That DA should be thrown in prison.
Asha Rangappa:
My arguments if I were on Smith’s team:
1. VP, even in role as Senate Pres, is not a “Senator or Representative” (referent for “they”)
2. Legislative priv, like exec priv, must yield to criminal process (c.f., U.S. v. Nixon)
3. GJS concerns actions/speech outside of leg duties
https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1625475624323129344
She screenshots relevant text from the Constitution.
Eric Columbus: “This is a helpful set of arguments from @AshaRangappa_ (and read the const’l text she screenshots). I think the ultimate winner is that even if Congress’ role on 1/6 was legislative, the VP’s role was *not* — it was purely ministerial. Thus Speech or Debate shouldn’t shield him.”
Rangappa:
“The bigger picture here is Pence is trying to use a separation of powers principle to prevent an investigation into executive overreach — a criminal attempt to usurp legislative authority (and overthrow the government!) in violation of separation of powers itself”
2. Legislative priv, like exec priv, must yield to criminal process (c.f., U.S. v. Nixon)
That’s BS. The constitution explicitly says it doesn’t yield to anything.
Are you denying U.S. v. Nixon?
What has that got to do with legislative immunity? Legislative immunity is literally in the constitution. That makes it absolute, and no court has any authority to mess with it.
I doubt that the courts will agree with you. Time will tell.
the phrase “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place” is categorical and comprehensive. It is not a “privilege” but an immunity. It would have no meaning if it could be made to disappear by waiving the flag of “criminal investigation”, which are as common these days in Washington DC as fleas on a vagabond dog.
Her point is what the pronoun “they” refers to and that Executive Branch speech isn’t part of “speech and debate” in Congress.
Your quote from this woman said: “Legislative priv, like exec priv, must yield to criminal process” The freedom of legislators from inquiry into their decisions is not a privilege like executive privilege. Whether Pence was a member of the House for purposes of the immunity is a separate question. It is a novel question that needs judicial consideration. That issue may depend on whether his role in affirming or rejecting electoral votes involved consideration of the merits of the vaiidity of the votes. In the past, some Democrats have thought that the VP’s decision does involve discretion.
Pence who?
Mike “Benedict Arnold” Pence
that’s who.
Did Hannibal Hamlin backstab “Crazy Abe” Lincoln when “Crazy Abe” shredded the Constitution, denied constitutional secession, commenced an illegal war, nullified the law, corrupted the government, forcibly imposed martial law, seized power, suspended habeas corpus, denied freedom of speech, threw opponents in prison, brutally destroyed printing presses, physically oppressed Americans, confiscated legal private property and deliberately acted with gross dereliction while failing to enforce extant immigration law, leaving an adversarial, foreign, 3-million-man, standing army on U.S. soil?
If “Crazy Abe” disobeyed and nullified all the laws to facilitate his criminal expropriation of power, are Americans bound to obey the anti-American, communist institutions, programs and laws extant today?
Why is there no statue of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, standing in support of the Constitution, in front of the Supreme Court? Because Taney did not high-criminally slaughter, without moral or legal basis, anywhere near the number of Americans that “Crazy Abe” did – the winners write the history books.
That single, honest, patriotic American stood up to the egregious high criminal, “Crazy Abe.”
________________________________________________________________________
CHIEF JUSTICE ROGER B. TANEY
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
____________________________________
SECESSION IS CONSTITUTIONAL
James Madison rejected a proposal which was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant the new federal government the specific power to suppress a seceding state.
“A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
– James Madison
______________
“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
– Thomas Jefferson
________________
“Where powers are assumed [by Lincoln] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act [of Lincoln’s assumption] is the rightful remedy.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Yet more garbage from George “Benedict Arnold”
A profound riposte, sir, and unassailable refutation.
Jonathan: Special Counsel Jack Smith is investigating Trump’s role in trying to overturn the 2020 election including the insurrection on Jan. 6. Smith wants Pence to testify before a grand jury about his conversations with Trump before and during the insurrection. That is unrelated to Pence’s legislative duties and I doubt any court will find it falls with the “Speech and Debate Clause”. So I don’t understand how you can argue “Pence has a good argument…for narrowing the scope of such testimony”. Nice try anyway.
That said I would like to return to your column yesterday about reparation proposals in California. As mentioned in an earlier comment reparations also involve of the return of stolen property to the descendants of their Black ancestors. That just happened in Manhattan Beach, CA. Who else should be required to step up to the plate?
I think banks and other lenders who participated in racially discriminatory home and business practices should be part of any reparations programs. I live in a city where “redlining” was prevalent. Blacks who lived east of the line dividing Black and White neighborhoods could not get business or home loans. This resulted in the loss of generational wealth. So banks and appraisers who were involved in these racially discriminatory practices should be required to participate. They can’t fall back on the lame excuse that their ancestors did not actually own slaves!
First, we assume a subpoena is an arrest, and sure, I can concur, but… “Shall in all cases… be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at session … speech or debate in either House.” Very broad statement, how can that possibly be misconstrued to limit privilege to only that which can be distinctly labeled legislative process? I would argue that is complete fiction, no where in that statement is it suggested that privilege is so limited. Pence cannot be compelled to attend and certainly can’t be compelled to answer.
That’s bulldust. Redlining was simply banks declining to lend money in shitty neighborhoods, where the risk of never getting their money back was unacceptably high. Why should they? Regulations banning it simply caused banks to lose money.
If someone’s grandfather was denied a loan, chances are good he would never have repaid it, and would not have left any wealth anyway. Even if you could prove that he would have repaid it and succeeded, there’s still no valid claim for reparations because NOBODY has an inherent right to borrow someone else’s money. I have no right to borrow your money and you have no right to borrow mine. If I am not comfortable lending you my money, even if it’s because of your race, you still have no right to that money, so you were not harmed if I decided to lend my limited money to someone else instead, or to keep it for myself.
Millhouse – Adding credence to your point about the folly of ignoring the reasons for red-lining, we may consider the Mortgage Meltdown of 2008 which was due mainly to the policy of the Clinton administration in forcing banks to lend money to people who did not meet the customary standards for loan approval.
As stated by Phil Gramm and Mike Solon in the WSJ in 2013:
“The Clinton administration lost the battle to use pensions to fund low-income housing, but it succeeded in winning the war by drafting Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the commercial banking system into the affordable-housing effort. It did so by exploiting a minor provision in a 1977 housing bill, the Community Reinvestment Act, that simply required banks to meet local credit needs.
Bank regulators began to pressure banks to make subprime loans. Guidelines became mandates as each bank was assigned a letter grade on CRA loans. Banks could not even open ATMs or branches, much less acquire another bank, without a passing grade—and getting a passing grade was no longer about meeting local credit needs. As then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified to Congress in 2008, ‘the early stages of the subprime [mortgage] market . . . essentially emerged out of the CRA.’ ” https://www.aei.org/articles/the-clinton-era-roots-of-the-financial-crisis/
When money is lent to people who lack the ability to repay the loan, you are not helping them. You are opening them up to the harried existence of the chronic and drifting debtor. In cities like Detroit, much of the housing stock was destroyed by sub-prime mortgage crisis. The people who received the loans ended up losing their homes and their own fragile hold on middle class status. The survivors live on empty streets. The remaining wealth of the city was drained away into the gigantic maw of the equity brokers on Wall Street, who of course gave some of it to the Democratic Party.
All Pence has to do is use the Hitlery Phrase “I can’t Recall”. If he’s forced to testify then the same should happen to Hitlery.
Pleading the 5th is another option but the Thugs in charge will likely outlaw that as well.
As was said of her by George Will in the days of Vince Foster, Whitewater, travelgate, etc., referencing the “I don’t remembers” and “I can’t recalls,” “She’s not a congenital liar, she’s a congenital lawyer.”
Who ca took a the turkey bloggy?
Does his momma chaw tobacco?
Mike Pence wrote a book and has given multiple interviews about what he now claims is privileged.
Nah, he’s claiming that the position he held at the time precludes the government from compelling him to testify. Not that what he wrote in his book is privileged.
But you already know that.
I actually thought Trump was a good POTUS in terms of policy, but the rest – sigh. the way he is smearing people in his own party – sigh. I really wish he’d just go away. This is bipartisan and everything in-between at this point – Trump: you were absolutely treated unfairly to the skies. many, many laws were broken, and I thank you for the exposure, but go away. Support the people trying to legitimately institute change and go away. Not a one of your villains will ever pay a price for their malfeasance. Keep shining the light, but get the heck out of the rest. heaven help us if he is our choice in 2024, because I no longer vote for democrats for anything whatsoever, period, (I don’t believe in regimes – they are antithetical to freedom whatever the stripe), no matter how trivial, and that automatically means a vote for him in protest.
The only way he’ll go away is if he either goes to jail or passes away.
Either one would make the Dems and other Trump haters to jump for joy. I think the Dems would prefer the second option, natural or not.
You must not know many Democrats. Every Democrat I know would much rather see him in prison.
along with all conservatives. That is the modern Democratic Party.
Nope. I’m a Democrat, and I don’t want most conservatives in prison. I also don’t think of Trump as a conservative.
Do you still wait for the Dums to imprison Trump as they continuously promised for the last 6 years? Do you still also believe in the tooth fairy?
What the heck? Vote for him anyway. Besides he is justified in attacking most of the other Republicans as they certainly did not come to his defense when he was attacked unfairly, even before he was elected.
“I actually thought Trump was a good POTUS in terms of policy”
That is what one wants in a good President.
One might prefer Biden’s temperament, but his policies are awful and he is a liar and a cheat.
If I were a Democrat,
I’d want Pence’s argument to succeed.
Not so much to protect Kamel Toe, but the massive number of Congress critters like Schiff who constantly go beyond the scope of the law in order to make what would be actionable statements with no fear of the consequences.
-G
The congressmen already have immunity, without a doubt. No decision on Pence can change that.
Music
Dumb smokers got no reason.
Dumb smokers got not reason!
Dumb smokers got no reason to live!
Strangely, Turley linked to an earlier Politico article about Pence being subpoenaed, but not today’s article breaking the story about his challlenge: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/14/pence-subpoena-trump-election-00082637
That’s a better discussion than JT’s.
A good suggestion from NYU law professor Ryan Goodman: “If Mike Pence wants to claim he can’t testify before grand jury on matters involving his exercising the office of President of the Senate. Well then maybe the Senate should subpoena him to testify next week.”
JJC,
You. might remind folks about how big a Kangaroo Court the January 6th Select Committee was as an example….or the Russia Collusion Hoax….or the Biden Classified Documents scandal has become.
Just to add some context to what you rightfully mention.
Pence was not engaged in legislative activity on J6, and IIRR, he already argued to the J6 Committee that he was acting as part of the Executive on J6, invoking separation of powers in rejecting their request that he testify.
Hopefully this will move quickly through the courts.
Meanwhile, I have to wonder why Smith hasn’t subpoenaed Meadows … unless he’s considered a target rather than a witness.
Counting the votes is a legislative function. Advising the president, about anything, including this, is obviously an executive function.
It’s a function of the legislative branch, but it involves neither debating nor passing nor informing legislation. We’ll see how the courts rule.
Re: the J6 Committee’s request, Pence, in an interview with CBS News, said: “We have a separation of powers under the Constitution of the United States and I believe it would establish a terrible precedent for the Congress to summon a vice president of the United States to speak about deliberations that took place at the White House.”
He can’t have it both ways.
Does one way absolutely exclude the other? No.
Actually he can have it both ways. The speech or debate clause says nobody outside the senate can hold him accountable for speech connected to his senatorial function. Executive privilege says that the legislature can’t inquire into his conversations with the president, even if they were talking about his legislative work. The same is true for any congressman; it he discusses his work with the president, e.g. negotiating his vote on some bill, that conversation is completely immune from anyone, because it’s covered by both congressional and executive privilege.
That’s not having it both ways. That’s pointing out that there’s some speech in each bucket (but no speech in both buckets — having it both ways).
Executive privilege does not protect him from another part of the executive branch and also gets determined by the current Executive, not by Pence or Trump.
The Senate should question him about the speech connected to his senatorial function.
Both kinds of privilege have a crime-fraud exception.
Again, consider the normal case of a congressman discussing with the president how he will vote on some measure the president wants. This happens all the time. The president invites congressmen over, to woo them and get their support for his measures. That conversation is protected by executive privilege, because he is advising the president; Congress cannot inquire into it. It is also protected by legislative immunity, so he can’t be made to answer for it anywhere but Congress. Therefore it’s completely immune.
And no, the legislative immunity has no exceptions. The courts have no authority to create any exceptions.
Yet Sen. Graham had to testify before the Grand Jury in GA. Being a Senator does not protect all of his speech.
I don’t like when others tell our host what to write about.
Having make the disclaimer. I would be interested in his take on the Constitutional power of Pence(Vice President) to refuse to count Electoral votes from one State. Counting the votes is an enumerated power of the VP. When a States votes were not counted, what would happen? The only resolution I see in the Constitution, is throwing the Presidential Election to the House of Representatives.
This would end the silliness of an attempted coup. Exercising enumerated constitutional power is not a coup.
Dont get into whether its legal. I want to know who has the power to overrule the VP.
Counting the votes is an enumerated power of the VP.
No, it isn’t. Nor is it a power of congress. That is the root of the whole problem. Had the constitution said that the VP shall count the votes in the presence of both houses of congress, then Eastman’s theory would be completely correct. It would be up to the VP to decide which votes are valid and should be counted, and which are invalid and should not.
Likewise had it said that Congress shall count the votes in the VP’s presence, reducing him to a mere witness to the count, then the Electoral Count Act would be valid and those championing it and claiming that Eastman’s theory is frivolous would be correct. Any doubt as to the validity of any vote would be resolved by Congress, as the Act says.
The problem is that the constitution doesn’t say either of these things. It says that both houses should meet, with the VP in the chair, and the votes “shall be counted“. It doesn’t say who shall count them. Therefore Eastman is correct that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional. But he’s incorrect in his alternative theory that the VP decides.
The correct answer is that the constitution is silent on this question, and the panel that resolved the 1876 crisis punted, so it remains unresolved. Congress after 1876 supposedly resolved it by passing the ECA, but that simply enshrines Congress’s opinion. The VP of the time had the opposite opinion, with an equal claim to validity.
If Congress’s opinion was correct then no Act was needed, and if it was incorrect then no Act can make it so. The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled (e.g. in the RFRA case) that Congress cannot impose its own constitutional interpretation simply by enacting a law. Interpreting the constitution is the judiciary’s function, and Congress can’t usurp it. But in this case the courts would probably say it’s a political question and not justiciable, just as it said about the Republican Guarantee clause. So the real answer is that the question cannot be resolved without a constitutional amendment.
Blame the framers of the 12th amendment for doing a sloppy job.
Thanks Milhouse.
That means it cant be a coup, to talk to the VP about not counting a states EV votes for cause. The vote would then be turned over the the House of Representatives.
This reminds of 2000 when the Florida Supreme Court ordered a State wide recount to settle the matter quickly and get the vote certified in time to get it to DC.
Of Course, the Court had no case before them, and ordered a recount they had no constitutional power to order. The courts fear was without merit, because the Constitution provided a mechanism IF the popular vote could not be certified. It would go to the Florida House to vote. The Court blew up the constitution for no reason.
Iowan, if Pence (or Congress, if it had the power to do so) had disqualified those electors’ votes and ordered them not to be counted, that would not have thrown the election to the House. It would have awarded the presidency to Trump outright, because he would then have a majority of the remaining votes.
Millhouse, this exchange between you and iowan2 reminds me of why I first joined this blog years ago. We need more of this. Well done to you both. Thank you!
The quoted language from the Constitution relates only to speech or debate “in either House.” Does that mean it does not cover what someone does when not “in” either House?
Does that mean it does not cover what someone does when not “in” either House?
My understanding of Turleys take on the court ruling, says as long as the speech concerns legislative matters it is covered, even if not from the legislative floor.
So Pences speech concerning his Constitutional powers would be covered.
The Supreme Court has said that it does. This is unlike most countries with a similar provision, where legislative immunity only applies to what is said literally on the floor of the chamber, and anything said outside the chamber is actionable.
Funny thing, Pence not on the side of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Nope, Pence doesn’t want to go there. Similar in many ways to pleading the 5th over 500 times, something Trump recently achieved.Among other things, draw conclusions about character….
“… draw conclusions about character …”
OK, since you asked: You have either no character or no understanding of the right to remain silent.
On the exercise of which judges are supposed to charge juries that they may draw no conclusion as a result.
Ellen
I have heard lawyers explain that civil trials are a different standard. Juries are instructed they may consider exercising 5th amendment rights can be held against a witness.
Only if there is independent evidence of the facts to which the witness refused to testify.
In any case, the proceedings we are discussing are all criminal, so a jury may never draw an adverse inference from a witness’s refusal to answer, even if there is independent evidence.
Anonymous-Acromion – Pence has a duty to future Vice-Presidents to protect that office. When there is a novel situation that could allow a prosecutor to invade the decision making of the V-P, it is appropriate to limit the legal scope of that inquiry. I suppose that the swipe at Trump is de rigueur.
Turley wrote, “Pence has a good argument in my view for narrowing the scope of such testimony.”
I completely agree.
Just take the 5th. End the Kabuki Theater nonsense.
No. He’s not afraid that anything will incriminate him. He didn’t do anything wrong. In his view Trump didn’t do anything wrong either, so he wants to avoid giving testimony that might incriminate him. That can be done by a combination of the speech and debate clause and the separation of powers.
So much for the alleged open and honest Pence.
Much easier taking the high moral ground, when judging others actions.
I hate it when commenters tell our host what to write about, but I would be interested in the idea that Pence (The Vice President) does have the power to not count some electoral votes, for cause. Or rather, What would happen when the Vice President would not count some votes? The only constitutional relief is to throw the vote to the House of Representatives.
That’s my take. Which means the President advocating for the Vice President to exercise his Constitutional power, is not a coup.
Blows up the whole investigation.
Pence doesn’t care what Turley says about it. Pence already consulted with the lawyer whose advice he does care about: Luttig. Luttig does not agree with you.
Luttig. Luttig does not agree with you.
That is non-responsive to my question. I specifically noted I did not want to get into the Legal/constitutional issue.
Who would have the power to overrule the Vice President? AGAIN, I fall back to the Constitution that provides for deciding an election where the winner falls short of the required Electoral Votes.
That means a criminal investigation into Jan 6 is meaningless. The constitution provides a solution.
Your question is an irrelevant hypothetical. You’re essentially asking “what if Luttig and Pence believed what I believe?” But they don’t believe what you believe.
“That means a criminal investigation into Jan 6 is meaningless.”
It doesn’t mean that, and the hundreds of people already convicted prove you wrong.
You’re essentially asking “what if Luttig and Pence believed what I believe?”
You cant read or comprehend.
Who could over rule the Vice President if he excluded one States Electoral votes?
Your question was about rejection “for cause.” Neither Luttig nor Pence agree with you that cause existed.
Ignore that which you know you cant answer.
The whole Electoral College was to protect against corrupt vote counting. Seems the VP fills that role to accept or deny. You may disagree. But if the votes are not counted, who has the constitutional power to intervene?
But the votes were counted.
The whole Electoral College was to protect against corrupt vote counting.
Huh? Where do you get that? What part of its design seems in any way adapted to that purpose? It was established for several reasons, but that wasn’t one of them.
Seems the VP fills that role to accept or deny. You may disagree.
There’s nothing in the text to support that position.
But if the votes are not counted, who has the constitutional power to intervene?
Nobody, it would seem
Justice: Sometimes when you’re in a street fight with thugs who don’t play fair you just have to stoop to their level sometimes to beat them. Consider all the lies and dishonesty of the Biden administration and the Democrats and you can begin to see why any decent and honest person like Pence would not have a chance against these people if he didn’t use every advantage the law gives him.
Openness and honesty doesn’t require deliberately assisting a lynch mob. “I cannot tell a lie, so I have no choice but to tell you that the Jews are hiding in the crawl space of my ceiling. Hey Solly, sorry about that; my hands were tied”