This thread will debunk the notion that Pence can throw out electors on January 6th. This will be a super thread that goes over what the laws actually says..
Feel free to ask questions, I will try to answer as many as I can at the end of the thread!
1/
Feel free to ask questions, I will try to answer as many as I can at the end of the thread!
1/
Quick overview (might not get to all of this tonight):
The actual law
Historical Examples
Specific conspiracy theories.
Q and A
2/
The actual law
Historical Examples
Specific conspiracy theories.
Q and A
2/
Election of 1886, Electoral chaos, Governors would sign one slate of Electors, Secretary of States would sign a different one, and in South Carolina you had no certified electors at all. The Constitution just wasn't clear on how to handle this.
A1/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_Unit…
A1/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_Unit…
To prevent a repeat of the 1876 election, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act (1887, amended 1948)
The law is convoluted to say the least, and has not been interpreted by SCOTUS. But just because you think the law is unconstitutional doesn’t mean you can ignore it
A2/
The law is convoluted to say the least, and has not been interpreted by SCOTUS. But just because you think the law is unconstitutional doesn’t mean you can ignore it
A2/
Let’s start with the Constitution, what does it say about Jan 6th?
Electoral votes should be certified (yellow), and that the VP open ALL certificates (blue). Since all electors have been certified by the states, this dispels the myth that Pence can refuse to open them.
A3/
Electoral votes should be certified (yellow), and that the VP open ALL certificates (blue). Since all electors have been certified by the states, this dispels the myth that Pence can refuse to open them.
A3/
What does the Electoral Count Act say?
States must have settled which electors are to be counted 6 days prior to the meeting of the electoral college (yellow). This instantly dispels the myth that States can change the electors now.
A4/
States must have settled which electors are to be counted 6 days prior to the meeting of the electoral college (yellow). This instantly dispels the myth that States can change the electors now.
A4/
Did you also notice the Blue and Red part? Good! It says that those electors “shall be conclusive and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes”. Again, this dispels the myth that Pence can just decide to not count votes!
A5/
A5/
Now we get to the juicy part!
I will admit that the Trump supporters are 100% correct here.
The date IS in fact January 6th..
A6/
I will admit that the Trump supporters are 100% correct here.
The date IS in fact January 6th..
A6/
“All the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes”.
I’ve seen a theory that this means the unelected Electors have to be counted! Not so fast, read the green parts. And keep “ascertained” in mind for the next few tweets
A7/
I’ve seen a theory that this means the unelected Electors have to be counted! Not so fast, read the green parts. And keep “ascertained” in mind for the next few tweets
A7/
Section 5. “If any State shall have provided”... “the appointment of the electors”... “shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes,”...”so far as the ascertainment of the electors... is concerned”.
GOP Electors not appointed by states shall not be counted
A8/
GOP Electors not appointed by states shall not be counted
A8/
S6 The Governor of each State certifies the Electors, and make sure the National Archives gets the certificates.
Guess which fake Electors aren’t at the National Archives?
Trumps. This should put the final nail in the coffin that is this myth.
A9/
archives.gov/electoral-coll…
Guess which fake Electors aren’t at the National Archives?
Trumps. This should put the final nail in the coffin that is this myth.
A9/
archives.gov/electoral-coll…
Okay, back to Jan 6. As we see here, the VP’s role is purely parliamentary, he is just to keep the meeting moving. Notice that after announcing the vote he “call[s] for objections.”
Nowhere does it say the VP can object!
A10/
Nowhere does it say the VP can object!
A10/
Now onto the actual business of objecting, it must be done by a Senator and Representative (yellow). And the Houses separate for a vote (blue).
This dismisses the myth that this vote is done as one vote per state. That only happens if a candidate doesn’t reach a majority
A11/
This dismisses the myth that this vote is done as one vote per state. That only happens if a candidate doesn’t reach a majority
A11/
And here we have the most damning portion yet.
“NO electoral vote[s]” “whose appointment has been lawfully certified according to section 6 of this title”... “shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote”
#micdrop
A12/
“NO electoral vote[s]” “whose appointment has been lawfully certified according to section 6 of this title”... “shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote”
#micdrop
A12/
As you can see, the law is quite clear: Pence has zero authority from either the Constitution or the Electoral Count Act, to not open, to object, to do anything but:
1) Count
2) Announce the vote total
3) Call for Objections
4) General Order of proceedings
Period.
A13/
1) Count
2) Announce the vote total
3) Call for Objections
4) General Order of proceedings
Period.
A13/
Historical Examples to debunk - Jefferson.
The story goes that Jefferson counted the electoral slate from Georgia that wasn't filled out in a traditional manner (it was 4 for Burr, and 4 for himself) without going through Congress to decide. But this wasn't a case of
B1/
The story goes that Jefferson counted the electoral slate from Georgia that wasn't filled out in a traditional manner (it was 4 for Burr, and 4 for himself) without going through Congress to decide. But this wasn't a case of
B1/
contested electors, but essentially a problem with the format of the slate. I find it rather ironic that Jefferson counting votes without permission means that Pence can change votes without permission.
Also, the law has fixed this procedure!
theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
B2/
Also, the law has fixed this procedure!
theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
B2/
Historical Examples to debunk - Nixon
Two slates of electors arrived to Nixon on Jan 6th. Which means he needed to throw the contest to the houses. To save time, he asked for permission from Congress to just toss out the known invalid slate.
B3/
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL…
Two slates of electors arrived to Nixon on Jan 6th. Which means he needed to throw the contest to the houses. To save time, he asked for permission from Congress to just toss out the known invalid slate.
B3/
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL…
Nixon (cont.)
The Nixon case proves, since he asked Congress for permission, that the Vice President cannot just throw out votes by himself!
Again, the example that MAGA uses actually proves them to be completely wrong.
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL…
B4/
The Nixon case proves, since he asked Congress for permission, that the Vice President cannot just throw out votes by himself!
Again, the example that MAGA uses actually proves them to be completely wrong.
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL…
B4/
On to Myth Debunking! Lets start with the two lawsuits, shall we? Wisconsin Voters Alliance v Pence
C1/
C1/
WVP v Pence #1
The Plaintiffs argue that not counting the uncertified electors is a violation of Equal Protection under the Constitution. Again, didn't MAGA tell us that these electors were real? Oh well, that's not the biggest issue with this lawsuit
C2/
The Plaintiffs argue that not counting the uncertified electors is a violation of Equal Protection under the Constitution. Again, didn't MAGA tell us that these electors were real? Oh well, that's not the biggest issue with this lawsuit
C2/
WVP v Pence #3
After filing, the Judge told them to provide proof of service on all defendants. The problem? They tried to sue THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
The Electoral College is a PROCESS, not an entity, it quite literally cannot be served
C3/
After filing, the Judge told them to provide proof of service on all defendants. The problem? They tried to sue THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
The Electoral College is a PROCESS, not an entity, it quite literally cannot be served
C3/
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1341794454550814730?s=20
Gohmert v Pence #1
Pence may be a lot of things, but he is not anti-constitution, which is exactly why he refused to participate in this nonsense. This refusal proves that even Pence doesn't think he has the authority to unilaterally toss votes.
C4/
politico.com/news/2020/12/2…
Pence may be a lot of things, but he is not anti-constitution, which is exactly why he refused to participate in this nonsense. This refusal proves that even Pence doesn't think he has the authority to unilaterally toss votes.
C4/
politico.com/news/2020/12/2…
Gohmert v Pence #2
I'm personally not going to go into too much detail about this case, but I HIGHLY recommend this thread that thoroughly debunks it. (highlights attached)
C5/
I'm personally not going to go into too much detail about this case, but I HIGHLY recommend this thread that thoroughly debunks it. (highlights attached)
C5/
https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1343753011361935361?s=20
Debunking delay tactics:
The vote only happens after all objections are heard. Since the objection is the same to all of them, Congress will most likely combine them into one vote. The law doesn't require Congress to do more than that.
D1/
The vote only happens after all objections are heard. Since the objection is the same to all of them, Congress will most likely combine them into one vote. The law doesn't require Congress to do more than that.
D1/
https://twitter.com/christianllamar/status/1344596408528113664?s=19
Gohmert v Pence #3 UPDATE
The DOJ (representing Pence) says that they filed suit against the wrong guy.
"The Vice President—the only defendant in this case—is ironically the very person whose power they seek to promote."
I think that probably nails the coffin shut
C6
The DOJ (representing Pence) says that they filed suit against the wrong guy.
"The Vice President—the only defendant in this case—is ironically the very person whose power they seek to promote."
I think that probably nails the coffin shut
C6
The Constitution:
"If no person" has a "majority" then "each state having one vote"
The "one vote per state" ONLY happens when a candidate doesn't have a majority
Contested electors are decided by both Houses in a separate vote see linked tweet:
A14/
"If no person" has a "majority" then "each state having one vote"
The "one vote per state" ONLY happens when a candidate doesn't have a majority
Contested electors are decided by both Houses in a separate vote see linked tweet:
https://twitter.com/JonathanTCasey/status/1344440490494750720?s=20
A14/
Gohmert v Pence #5
This suit would "empower the VP" to "decide objections to the validity of electoral votes, notwithstanding the Electoral Count Act"
Clearly, Pence and the DOJ understand that the law (ECA) is still the law
The PenceCard is Dead.
C7/
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
This suit would "empower the VP" to "decide objections to the validity of electoral votes, notwithstanding the Electoral Count Act"
Clearly, Pence and the DOJ understand that the law (ECA) is still the law
The PenceCard is Dead.
C7/
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
So people keep saying that Pence has the authority from the Constitution. Which is obviously wrong if you just read the Constitution!
The Constitution gives one job to the VP: open all electoral slates that were certified by the States. Period. That's it.
C8/
The Constitution gives one job to the VP: open all electoral slates that were certified by the States. Period. That's it.
C8/
Gohmert v Pence Dismissal #1
The judge dismissed this case today and was quite clear that the ECA is very much the law. He notes that the Bidden AZ electors were properly certified, and I love that he puts scare quotes around "competing electors"
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2043…
C9/
The judge dismissed this case today and was quite clear that the ECA is very much the law. He notes that the Bidden AZ electors were properly certified, and I love that he puts scare quotes around "competing electors"
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2043…
C9/
Gohmert v Pence Dismisal #2
"The House and Senate"..not by state, but by full vote.."to decide any objection"
This fully puts to bed any notion that Pence has any role in deciding objections.
This is the law, sorry, it's not going to change in time
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2043…
"The House and Senate"..not by state, but by full vote.."to decide any objection"
This fully puts to bed any notion that Pence has any role in deciding objections.
This is the law, sorry, it's not going to change in time
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2043…
Gohmert v Pence Dismissal #3
ECA "gives the state governor a role in certifying"..."electors"
I'm going to rub this in a little because I TOLD YOU GOVERNORS HAVE A ROLE IN CERTIFYING ELECTORS!
Sorry, I'm just tired of having to make this argument.
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2043…
ECA "gives the state governor a role in certifying"..."electors"
I'm going to rub this in a little because I TOLD YOU GOVERNORS HAVE A ROLE IN CERTIFYING ELECTORS!
Sorry, I'm just tired of having to make this argument.
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2043…
Gohmert v Pence Dismissal #4
So yeah, as expected, it was dismissed on standing. The AZ fake electors were suing Pence because they didn't like that the AZ governor certified the Biden electors, wut?
But it was good to see that the Judge agrees with my opinion on the law.
So yeah, as expected, it was dismissed on standing. The AZ fake electors were suing Pence because they didn't like that the AZ governor certified the Biden electors, wut?
But it was good to see that the Judge agrees with my opinion on the law.
I'm going to start answering specific questions, and this one is a good one.
The reason the thread is so long is I tried to make the thread as complete a review of the law as possible. I think I came as close as you can get in a Twitter format
D1/
The reason the thread is so long is I tried to make the thread as complete a review of the law as possible. I think I came as close as you can get in a Twitter format
D1/
https://twitter.com/ThomasMaximus2/status/1344973899805683712?s=20
So the following statement is Pence saying the authority the lawsuit seeks ACTUALLY resides with the House and Senate, so it is Congress who should be sued
It proves Pence doesn't believe he has the authority that Trump supporters want him to have
D2/
It proves Pence doesn't believe he has the authority that Trump supporters want him to have
D2/
https://twitter.com/JonathanTCasey/status/1344784770207797248
Yeah, I've already addressed the 1960 Election which shows that Nixon asked permission to throw out those votes.
And Pence quite literally cannot just "set aside" laws he doesn't like.
And Pence quite literally cannot just "set aside" laws he doesn't like.
https://twitter.com/LPPSusie/status/1345033642993741825?s=20
So this Executive Order literally only says "investigate the alleged foreign interference and sanction the [foreign] perpetrators"
Sorry, Trump can't sanction foreigners into overturning an election. That's not a thing.
D3/
Sorry, Trump can't sanction foreigners into overturning an election. That's not a thing.
D3/
https://twitter.com/Irwbpk/status/1345027899225587712?s=20
I mean, you're not wrong. It is your only option, but good luck with all that!
D4/
D4/
https://twitter.com/JohnWal14786825/status/1345018209544630273?s=20
What is it with "constitutional lawyers" and using ALLCAPS...
Just give it a break already!
Both the ALLCAPS and pretending to be a constitutional lawyer...
D5/
Just give it a break already!
Both the ALLCAPS and pretending to be a constitutional lawyer...
D5/
https://twitter.com/StevieR44888515/status/1344776499375837184?s=20
I actually appreciate this take, they took the time to find out I'm not a liberal!
D6/
D6/
https://twitter.com/tru_mama/status/1345032463081484292?s=20
Oooof, you got me. I am a clown....
D7/
D7/
https://twitter.com/TinaSmithNOLA/status/1344771558091403264?s=20
Fraud would either need to be determined by a judge, or a vote by the legislature. Neither of those things have happened.
Even if either of those things did happen, it is probably too late since by law the electoral votes are final.
Even if either of those things did happen, it is probably too late since by law the electoral votes are final.
https://twitter.com/SusanUhrik/status/1345028278311133185?s=20
If anyone wants to see the debunking of the 1856 Wisconsin Electors, here you go:
(once again, they prove that the Vice President never had the authority to throw out votes)
(once again, they prove that the Vice President never had the authority to throw out votes)
https://twitter.com/JonathanTCasey/status/1345208284509298688?s=20
Good question! So I *believe* that the Senate would just temporarily replace Pence as the President of the Senate and continue on.
I'm not 100% because I am not very familiar with Senate rules, but they could also alter the rules to allow this
I'm not 100% because I am not very familiar with Senate rules, but they could also alter the rules to allow this
https://twitter.com/OblivionVortex/status/1345456095532376070?s=19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
