4 ms·

> And the republicans specifically counted on this happening, as it would give Pence plausible cause to count fake electors. The delay is an essential part of t

• Timon3 2y ago
  > I don't think that would have changed Pence's mind, I think that's where I disagree then. Pence was going to do what he was going to do regardless. A delay wasn't going to make people change their minds. Trump attempted to change Pences mind multiple times, including tweets painting a target on his back while the terrorist attack was underway. Trump was aware of the attack going on, and instead of making statements to discourage violence, he directed the terrorists at Pence while he still perceived a chance for things to go his way. A delay wasn't going to make people change their minds, but direct threats of violence (remember the chants and the gallows?) stoked by the sitting president sure could have. > It seems more plausible to me that Trump actually thought (and still thinks) it was rigged and was supporting a protest just like any other and then things got out of control. He was a bad president in that moment, which would have affected him negatively if it was just left alone. This is what I can't understand - the sitting president and their party put the country in a position where, if one person had bowed to their pressure, the election would have been overturned. Many of these people specifically worked towards this goal, sending fake electors - and the president explicitely supported this whole scheme, while everyone was telling him that there was no evidence for the election being rigged. How are any citizens supposed to be okay with this? Even if Trump fully believed his own lies, it doesn't make this one bit better. The government was almost overthrown by the sitting president, and he's just going to run again, only this time his stacked courts have given him far wider-reaching powers and have removed ways to hold them accountable. How are you not all extremely scared of the consequences for your country? Just for the record, here are some tweets (all before any public statement discouraging the attack): January 6, 2021 06:00:50 > If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. Many States want to decertify the mistake they made in certifying incorrect & even fraudulent numbers in a process NOT approved by their State Legislatures (which it must be). Mike can send it back! January 6, 2021 13:17:22 > States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage! January 6, 2021 19:24:22 > Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!
  • admissionsguy 2y ago
    This part I don’t get. How do you construct pressuring the VP to make a procedural step that it is within his discretion to make as an attempted coup?
    • Timon3 2y ago
      How is overturning an election not an attempted coup, especially when it's based on a fringe reading of the legal documents specifying these procedures? It's absolutely not a given that Pence had the power to do anything - but that's why Republicans have been stacking the courts, so they suddenly can interpret laws in ways that overturn the will of the people. And honestly, what kind of defense is that? "Yeah, the sitting president attempted to overturn the election and stay in power, but theoretically this never-before used procedural loophole could give his VP the right to ignore the election results due to the terrorist attack committed by the presidents followers" - you can't seriously think this is acceptable behavior for your leaders, right? No matter how you put it: Trump attempted to stay in power after he lost the election. There is no world in which this isn't an attempted coup.
      • skissane 2y ago
        Doesn't this logic also lead to the conclusion that Bush mounted a successful coup in 2000? Democratically speaking, Al Gore had won the popular vote. And he might have won the electoral college vote too, if SCOTUS hadn't shut his push for a recount down in a partisan 5-4 decision. In fact, there are still voices on the left who call the 2000 election a "judicial coup d'état". If American democracy survived one coup, why couldn't it survive another? Of course, you can argue that the popular vote isn't what really counts, it is the electoral college vote. However, if you are going to put process ahead of the people's will in that way – isn't the various attempts to manipulate the electoral college counting which arguably occurred in 2020 and 2000 (and even happened or almost happened in 1960–what if Nixon had been in a less generous mood?) just taking the same "process over popular will" a step further? If the electoral college isn't in itself a coup, what makes pushing its technicalities a coup? I'm not saying that what either Bush or Gore in 2000 did is exactly the same as what Trump did in 2020. But it certainly seems like 2000 – at least to some degree – created a precedent for what happened 20 years later, and also for many of the narratives (on one side or the other) that would be invoked 20 years later