Given that he surely knows how unpopular that opinion is amongst his base, could that be a further hint that Mike Pence is secretly a white hat?
Trump did say back when the left stole the election "sometimes it takes more courage to do the wrong thing".
Thoughts?
I appreciate your thorough reply, and I get what you are saying. As you do appear to have a good understanding of the process, I will keep this reply brief.
You claim to know exactly what what happened in the senate; but you don't seem to understand what the senate rules committee did on that day with a sudden [senate] rules change, that in effect inserted the senate rules committee into the election process.
This is correct, and this is precisely why Mike Pence needed to refuse to certify the election. That issue, the validity of the state appointed electors, was never considered by the senate, because the senate rules committee inserted itself into the election process- an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, to rule that the challengers were invalid(!), and refused to hear that challenge.
And you are also correct in that this specific matter was a case that needed to be addressed by the SCOTUS.
That is the key issue. When the senate rules committee invented a loophole to insert themselves into the election process (do your homework if you don't know what I mean) only hours prior to state electors challenging the validity of their state electors, Mike Pence had a constitutional duty to protect the constitution. He needed to stop the certification, and force the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of the senate rules change. He did not, thus violating his oath of office, and allowing Joseph Robinette Biden to become an illegally installed POTUS.
More accurately, the counting process, a process set by 3 USC, statutory law that to a significant degree, is unconstitutional. Congress has no constitutional authority to insert itself into any Electoral adjudication matters.
Where in the Constitution, is the President of the Senate explicitly authorized with this alleged power to "certify" the count of the Electoral votes, let alone judge as to the legitimate appointment of said Electors?
Where in the Constitution, is the Senate explicitly authorized to "consider" the "validity" of the state appointed Electors?
That's a BINGO. So let's focus on that actual issue, as opposed to wasting time on arguments in sophistry.
Here's some better homework, research how Congress invented a power that the Constitution never authorized, to insert itself into the Electoral adjudication process. Start in the 1862 and work your way through 1876, the ECA, and the codification of that statute. "Senate rules loopholes" are peanuts. Go for the big fish, e.g. the unconstitutional intrusion of the entire Legislative body into the realm of the Judiciary.
And he has the constitutional duty to not violate the Constitution. Violating the Constitution, to protect it, is still a violation of the Constitution. How we win matters, and violating the Constitution to save it, was not the way, especially when there were and are still several constitutionally sound remedies yet to be exercised.
You mean, the COUNT of the Electoral votes. Again, there is no "certification" power explicitly authorized by the Constitution, not to the POTS, not to Congress. Yes, it's a glaring flaw of the Constitution, but alas, it's there. We can't just imagine in a fix that isn't there.
Trump could have filed a direct challenge to SCOTUS anytime, just as Bush did in 2000. Technically, he didn't. But he still could. And yet, he hasn't. Why is that? And again, this "Senate rules change" is a deadend argument. The real argument is over the unlawful actions of state governments to appoint Electors as "winners" of elections that were unconstitutionally run. That's the whole enchilada.
Donald J. Trump was the lawful President of the United States of America, clothed with immense power. He was the Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military on earth, whose duty was to enforce federal law and the US Constitution, and to suppress the insurrection and rebellion that occurred in 2020. And yet, the Resident was allowed to occupy the WH. Where was Trump? If you're going to apply this standard against Pence, why not Trump, especially given his exponentially greater power as POTUS as Rome was left burning (at least, from what we saw). Come, let us reason together. You're Longstreeting Pence to Leeionize Trump.
I like to think, and hope that it's true, that there was more going on behind the curtain with Trump and Pence making the hard decisions to sacrifice the Alamo in order to win Texas (not a big fan of the politics that pushed that domino, but I digress...). Still waiting for that grand reveal. It's been 2 years and popcorn is getting too expensive.
Agreed. And that is a matter best left to constitutional attorney's, and state, and federal judiciaries to rule on.
While we disagree on whether or not Pence had the constitutional authority to halt the counting of the electoral votes, he most certainly has a mouth, and he failed to use it to call out the clearly unethical, and arguably unconstitutional shenanigans of the senate rules committee on Jan. 6.
However one want to slice it- senate rules changes that were made on Jan. 6 were clearly done to affect the electoral counting process, and that alone qualifies as election interference.
Mike Pence did not contest that, and still does not to this day. Trump did contest the election, and still does to this day. One refused to uphold their oath of office- the other is still trying to uphold theirs.
He had no Constitutional authority to stop what was being done.
Lawyers attempted to fight Trump's legal battle for him, in a haphazard fashion. Can't tell me that DJT was less capable than GWB to get a challenge heard by SCOTUS. Either DJT is in fact 1.) a moron 2.) an enemy plant 3.) a genius or 4.) a great actor for whoever is truly behind the curtain. I still lean towards a combination of 3+4.