Mike Pence - “It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump....."

[AU9377 5,024]

“I believe anyone that puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States and anyone who asks someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again,”

Bring on the excuses........... MAGA will now be calling Pence a trans loving pedophile.

https://apnews.com/article/pence-trump-endorsement-c05ffad1e20381fed3cfc87b7071ba4c

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

He’s right.  The problem is both candidates of the major political parties have trashed the Constitution.  Yes, Biden is not heeding the SCOTUS by still forgiving student debt for votes and mandated the Covid vaccine using OSHA as a governing organization on the American people that was against the Constitution.  He is also not protecting the citizens of the U.S. by allowing illegal immigrants in at an alarming rate.

[AU9377 5,024]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

He’s right.  The problem is both candidates of the major political parties have trashed the Constitution.  Yes, Biden is not heeding the SCOTUS by still forgiving student debt for votes and mandated the Covid vaccine using OSHA as a governing organization on the American people that was against the Constitution.  He is also not protecting the citizens of the U.S. by allowing illegal immigrants in at an alarming rate.

Those issues are very debatable, but they are policy debates.  The Supreme Court and Congress both have the constitutional power to temper the acts of the Executive branch by either a legislative 2/3 majority or the judicial branch's determination that an action is unconstitutional or violates current law in some way.

Trump's actions after the last general election weren't taken within our system of government.  Instead, he attempted to coerce and pressure others to ignore their oaths of office and take actions that were intended to result in him retaining power and remaining in office. He was willing to ignore the constitution that he swore to defend in order personally benefit.  Had Obama done any of the things that Trump did, Republicans would have demanded that he be executed for treason.  That isn't an exaggeration.  Trump's arguments were found to have no merit in EVERY COURT proceeding.  Instead of respecting that, he looked for ways to circumvent the process.

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

7 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

He was willing to ignore the constitution that he swore to defend in order personally benefit.

Is it not Constitutional to question elections?  He did take is further than any one else, but it is his Constitutional right.  He did not succeed just like other candidates that disagreed with the results.

[Leftfield 2,638]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is it not Constitutional to question elections?  

Lol...yeah, and he did it in the same sense he exercised his right to say hello to E. Jean Carroll.

[AU9377 5,024]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Lol...yeah, and he did it in the same sense he exercised his right to say hello to E. Jean Carroll.

Post of 2024 nomination right there!  LMAO

[AU9377 5,024]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is it not Constitutional to question elections?  He did take is further than any one else, but it is his Constitutional right.  He did not succeed just like other candidates that disagreed with the results.

His constitutional right was to file for judicial review in the jurisdictions.  He did that ... they told him that he had no facts to support his wild assertions.  He had the right to petition the state election board, the state legislatures etc to hear his objections.  He did that and they listened.  They did audits and told him that he had lost the election. 

That is when he started pursuing a plan outside the bounds of the constitution he had given an oath to defend.  He decided to pressure the governors of states where he had lost to call special sessions of their legislatures and declare their results invalid.  The plan did not depend on that working, but instead would buy time to allow the U.S. House or Rep. to get involved.  He believed that would provide him the avenue to be chosen by the House and discard the wishes of the voters in the states he lost.

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

49 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

His constitutional right was to file for judicial review in the jurisdictions.  He did that ... they told him that he had no facts to support his wild assertions.  He had the right to petition the state election board, the state legislatures etc to hear his objections.  He did that and they listened.  They did audits and told him that he had lost the election. 

That is when he started pursuing a plan outside the bounds of the constitution he had given an oath to defend.  He decided to pressure the governors of states where he had lost to call special sessions of their legislatures and declare their results invalid.  The plan did not depend on that working, but instead would buy time to allow the U.S. House or Rep. to get involved.  He believed that would provide him the avenue to be chosen by the House and discard the wishes of the voters in the states he lost.

So, he isn’t allowed to think outside the box?  I’m sure he was being advised by his lawyers.  Fani Willis is bring RICO charges against Trump and that is really thinking outside the box.

Edited March 16 by I_M4_AU

[AU9377 5,024]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, he isn’t allowed to think outside the box?  I’m sure he was being advised by his lawyers.  Fani Willis is bring RICO charges against Trump and that is really thinking outside the box.

Those attorneys were the first to accept plea deals.  His White House counsel at the time was outraged at what they were doing and advised them to "get a great f'ing criminal defense lawyer" ...

Bill Barr, his Attorney General at the time, resigned and wanted no part in what they were doing.  He had been asked to announce an investigation and that problems had been uncovered, even though none had been.  Barr refused.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/06/14/white-house-attorney-told-trumps-legal-advisor-to-get-great-fing-criminal-defense-lawyer-after-jan-6/?sh=56fe1a254651

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

11 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Those attorneys were the first to accept plea deals.  His White House counsel at the time was outraged at what they were doing and advised them to "get a great f'ing criminal defense lawyer" ...

Bill Barr, his Attorney General at the time, resigned and wanted no part in what they were doing.  He had been asked to announce an investigation and that problems had been uncovered, even though none had been.  Barr refused.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/06/14/white-house-attorney-told-trumps-legal-advisor-to-get-great-fing-criminal-defense-lawyer-after-jan-6/?sh=56fe1a254651

Well, he is defending himself, but posting an article about what the Jan 6th committee said doesn’t quite have the same punch it did just months ago.

[homersapien 11,426]

Think "outside the box". 

Just like bank robbers, extortionists and swindlers - hell, all criminals - are "thinking outside the box".