No, he doesn’t.
1 Like
So why the legislation then?
If it ain’t broke…
To protect against another illegal attempt. Triump (falsely) claimed there was nothing prohibiting it and a bunch of idiots believed him. There is now that definitive language on the books
It obviously is broke - that’s the whole point.
Clearing up ambiguity in law through legislation isn’t quite the gotcha you think it is.
Oh OK.
Like hate crime laws…double duper illegal then…states feds and all.
Got it.
1 Like
This is word salad.
What are you trying to say?
Why do you have a problem with the legislation? You think the VP should have that right?
So, Trump did nothing, and asked of Pence nothing, that was against the constitution as written. Dems and RINOs just don’t like the opportunity inherent in the constitution as written for the VP to slow things down when there are legal concerns raised about the processes used to arrive at the EC tallies.
No, he definitely did.
Shhh. That’s the quiet part.
Why do you ask questions that have already been generously answered?
Rather rude IMO.
If it was definitely against the constitution, then why is there any need to amend the constitution to prevent it happening
1 Like
There is no need to amend the Constitution to prevent it from happening.
This is just a law.
They are not amending the Constitution
Why is the new law needed, if the constitution is clear. Why not just get the SC to rule on whether Trump’s strategy was a constitutionally invalid option. Isn’t that part of their job?
1 Like
To clear up ambiguity.
No, actually they are Constitutionally prohibited from doing so.
Lol - why am I not surprised that Congress is actually doing something productive and we see Trump supporters right here whining about it.
3 Likes
I gurss if the globalists ever charge and see Trump convicted legally, the appeals against conviction might make it to the SC.But we know they won’t, because they know he was operating within the letter of the Constitution.
What’s even funnier is seeing the same people who claimed Trump didn’t try to change the vote on January 6th argue that the Supreme Court should rule on whether Trump’s attempt to change the vote on January 6th was legal.
1 Like
