Leaked Memo Shows How Trump's Lawyer Wanted Pence To Overturn Elections

Leaked Memo Shows How Trump's Lawyer Wanted Pence To Overturn Elections


As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


"No, no, no!" Trump shouted. "You don't understand, Mike. You can do this. **I don't want to be your friend anymore if you don't do this."** Yet another example of Trump having the mind and emotions of a fucking child


He did say at one point that when he looks at himself in 1st grade compared to now (the time of when he said it), he's pretty much the same person. So this "mind and emotions of a child" may be more spot-on than some people realize.


["When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different."](https://theweek.com/speedreads/575962/donald-trump-tells-biographer-hes-same-now-first-grade)


Lol. That isn’t the flex he thinks it is.


I've never seen a person who was so confidently wrong about so many things. He knows almost literally nothing about anything. But you mention any topic and he will pretend to be an expert.


Also the utter inability to back down. See: sharpie hurricane


It's this for me. If he were at least capable of backing down from time to time, or changing his lie to accommodate a change, I could live with it. But the fact that he was consistently wrong or off about something and literally could not admit that he was wrong (and would even double down on some matters). Super frustrating.


He drew a goddamn bubble on a NHC cone of uncertainty and held a press conference for it. That was the moment when I knew we are really living in a reality tv show for the universe


That's why we are 600,000+ deep in Covid deaths, because he had to prove he knew more than the experts.


The biggest difference is that Daddy Trump is no longer there to shovel cash at him.


But Daddy Putin is.


It’s genuinely frightening that tens of millions of people can not see/do not care that this man has the emotional maturity of a child.


I always hear my coworkers talk about how senile they think Biden is and how they miss Trump because he was old but in control of his mental faculties. It's honestly scary to think about how skewed they see the world. Either they perceive things in an insane warping of reality or they are just performatively lying. Not sure which is worse.


i dont think i want to be friends with them anymore.


I work with them and at 5 I leave the building. No use bringing that home with me


haha for sure. i was saying it in the style of how trump said it to mike pence.




They perceive the disinformation on social media and come to that conclusion. Biden is old sure but not demented


Biden clearly has a speech impediment that he is open about? He must be mind controlled. Trump mentions taking over airports during the revolutionary war? Nothing to see here, boys


And don't forget windmill noise causes cancer


They choose to see what validates their views and ignore everything else or rationalize it away. Same thing religious folk do with their religious texts.


Yeah, being factually right is never more important than appearing to be right. A few years back I had an argument with someone insisting that we were a Christian nation. I gave her all the proof that we weren’t and she said “Okay. Fine we’re not” Then I asked her “now that you know this and admit it, if a week from now you’re talking to a likeminded friend and they mention America being a Christian nation, will you correct them?” And she said “No, why would I?” Their worldview is lies are okay if they are self serving.


I once was talking to a co-worker who said he thought Reagan was the greatest president ever because he eliminated the national debt. I showed him it was false and he said it didn’t matter because it was the “idea” of Reagan as eliminating the debt that really mattered.


I dunno - maybe I’ve seen too many gangster movies or I’m giving him too much credit, but I read “I don’t want to be your friend anymore” as ominous. Like in The Irishman when Joe Pesci’s character says “we’re very concerned about this guy.”


That was my take as well... if you read the context of that quote... it is definitely Trump trying to come off as some Mafia Don... "I take care of my friends and if you don't do this, you will no longer be my friend." It's meant to be a threat and should be taken as a threat.




100% can you imagine being Mike. He gets a gangster threat and then the next thing you know a huge angry mob infiltrates the capital chanting about how they are going to kill you.


And they brought along a noose just for good measure.


yes, a two bit gangster wanna-be talks like a gangster. stachastic terrorism.


Lmao what if Pence just couldn't stand the thought of another 4 years as the first shitcatcher


This is scary as hell. Imagine if Trump had picked a lapdog like Gaetz or Jordan to be his VP. BTW: for all you Constitutional Conservatives out there, how does this hang with you? Serious question.. we had a sitting President try to override our democracy and install himself for a 2nd term.


They will say it was not an attempt to override our democracy because “the election was stolen”, so they are the ones saving it.


No one is the villain of their own story.


For the self-proclaimed Constitutional Conservatives, if the rules can be bent to own the libs then it is fine and if the rules must be rigged to own the libs that is also fine. These clowns are not serious scholars and are every bit as selfish and self-serving as the rest of the republican cult.


The ends justify the means to these people. The Republican voters want a theocracy. The republican leaders want an oligarchy. The leaders will give the voters an oligarchy disguised as a theocracy. The voters wont realize what has happened until it's too late, at which point their leaders will blame the other party and their gullible voters will believe every word of it.


So what your saying is that the Republican Party is basically rich people manipulating stupid people into hating compassionate people.


Yeah, it seems so. I think for conservative leadership it’s all about deregulation snd tax cuts. But to achieve that they have to scare the morons with brown people snd women’s rights.


And LBGTQA+, atheists, educated people, and anyone not Christian. Yes they attract some of those types but they seemed to be either opportunistic assholes or people who’s identity stops at themselves. Even a college educated, non-believing individual comfortable with their sexuality can still be a piece of shit.


Before the night of long knives Hitler and the nazi party played the political game and had nazi supporters who were of mixed race, gay, and even Jewish. Then they were no longer of any use and Hitler was in a good place to just purge them from his party and had many of them who were leaders or professors assassinated. I think about that piece of pre holocaust history when I see people like milo yiannopoulos, Candace Owens, Laura Ingraham, latinos who voted for trump, etc.


And opportunists like them are always helped by media coverage that gives them an air of legitimacy. Looking at you, C-SPAN, as you keep airing rallies for Trump and other supporters of the Big Lie and Jan 6th even though it's been almost a year since he lost the election and they have been thoroughly discredited


It isn't that hard to understand. Fascists and other authoritarians need an enemy to rally the troops. Once they've defeated one enemy, they need another one. They need a constant state of war to stay in power. Those in power will turn on the most loyal ally once they are no longer needed. Case in point: Mike Pence.


What these collaborators never realize is that there always has to be an out group. And when one particular outgroup gets purged or reduced to irrelevance, another must be identified and marginalized/eliminated. So no matter how long you're on the "winning side" you're eventually going to get kicked to the losing one.




I'm not compassionate, I just want a government that's purpose isnt the exploitation of fleecing of it's people. Its absolutely absurd how america has just turned into a blood pit for corporate mosquitoes. They want us stupid, and they want crab mentality to keep us here. Fuck the Republican Domestic Enemies of America.


>The Republican voters want a theocracy. The republican leaders want an oligarchy. The leaders will give the voters an oligarchy disguised as a theocracy. Bing-fucking-go


What truly baffles me is that they think their version of a theocracy will work. Look at certain majority-Muslim countries. Sunni and Shia Muslims within those countries are in bitter conflict, not to mention the extremist groups that don’t think their government does enough to uphold Islam to their defined standards. It would be the same here. Anytime I hear someone saying that we are a Christian nation and should operate as such, I ask, “whose interpretation of Christianity?” because they’re clearly not the same. If evangelicals are convinced that the COVID vaccine is evil and sent by Satan, and Orthodox Christians or Catholics don’t, for example, they will never reach any sort of agreement. If Episcopal churches welcome all and Southern Baptists don’t, they really aren’t acting as a cohesive group. A Christian theocracy would crumble due to infighting and factionalism just like in Europe throughout history. Considering they didn’t pay attention or simply didn’t learn about that in school, they are clueless as to what they are really asking for.


Baked into the assumptions of the faithful is the inherent 'correctness' of christianity, and they can't see past it. They are marks for would-be oligarch and aristocrats who don't necessarily give a fuck about jesus and christianity, only as bunting that will give them legitimacy in the eyes of the faithful. Its so transparent.


You don’t understand. This time it would be different. Besides, a new Dark Age is more or less what most conservatives think they want.


The same conservatives that couldn't go a month without a haircut...


Never have they suffered more than when Applebees was closed for indoor dining


The economic damage would be devastating. Once the billionaire-turned-trillionaire class sucked the country dry most of the US would be inpoverished. A dying country with the world's largest military would be a threat to the continued existence of humanity like has never been seen before.


That’s the magic ingredient of sectarian violence - it makes its own enemies and creates the excuse for tyranny. As long as those dirty secular atheists don’t get involved and start trying to be all moderate and stop the game of course.


Another thing these certain majority-Muslim countries have are a small group of extremely wealthy patrons who control every facet of the government and do not want the unwashed masses getting their filthy hands on anything they deem to be theirs.


Exactly - friend of mine was raised in the Church of Christ and her mother absolutely believes they are the ones who uphold the Bible “the right way” and everyone else doesn’t “understand it the way it’s meant to be understood”. But it got even more interesting when this friend took in her elderly mother and brought her to the Church of Christ she has been attending since she moved away from her momma. And apparently that Church of Christ wasn’t doing things right, according to Momma. Only Momma’s former little country church seems to be exercising the right principles. Now multiply that line of thinking times a many many millions of people and you can see why a Christian theocracy in the US would fall into a long, multi-faceted civil war in only a few years. Separation of church and state is essential to the survival of the country.


It's the same picture. The first rule of a proper Evangelical theocracy is 'the leader can do no wrong.' So for the ruling class there's no difference between an Evangelical theocracy and a oligarchy. I mean sure there's a bunch of laws that screw over women, LGBT people, and non white people extra hard. But laws only matter for the poor so why would the Republican elite care? That's the bit people need to realize. No one's being tricked in the grand scheme. The voters and the overlords are both getting what they desire. The 'trick' is that the theocracy the Republican voters want won't make their lives better. It'll just make everyone else's life worse.


I honestly believe many Republicans are pro slavery. They cant and wont admit it to themselves, but they benefit from having a lesser class or service class. Karens are personifications of a white overlord pissed that an underclass is telling them what to do. Their ideals are all laid bare when they defend the confederacy using veiled terminology like states rights.


They have to be. Capitalism has to have a low class/slave pool. If everyone gets paid enough to live a quality life and social needs are taken care of you can't have people worth $200B. A true democracy would never allow welfare for corporations and the .01% either. That's why we are a Republic at the federal level.


Party over principles.


Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” This seems increasingly true.


There’s no such thing as a constitutional conservative. It’s a meaningless term. Conservatism (big C) has always had one goal and little c “general” conservatism is a myth. Conservatism has the related goals of maintaining a de facto aristocracy that inherits political power and pushing outsiders down to enforce an under class. In support of that is a morality based on a person’s inherent status as good or bad - not their actions. The thing that determines if someone is good or bad is whether they inhabit the aristocracy. Another way, Conservatives - those who wish to maintain a class system - assign moral value to people and not actions. Those not in the aristocracy are immoral and therefore deserve punishment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs its a ret con https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html Part of this is posted a lot: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 I like the concept of Conservatism vs. anything else. ***** A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ To paraphrase: “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.” Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.” The philosophic definition of something should include criticism. The Stanford page (despite taking pains to justify small c conservatism) includes criticisms. Involving those we can conclude generalized conservatism (small c) is a myth at best and a Trojan Horse at worst. ***** Incase you don’t want to read the David Frum piece here is a highlight that democracy only exists at the leisure of the elite represented by Conservatism. >The most crucial variable predicting the success of a democratic transition is the self-confidence of the incumbent elites. If they feel able to compete under democratic conditions, they will accept democracy. If they do not, they will not. And the single thing that most accurately predicts elite self-confidence, as Ziblatt marshals powerful statistical and electoral evidence to argue, is the ability to build an effective, competitive conservative political party before the transition to democracy occurs. Conservatism, manifest as a political party is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. One prior attempt at rebuttal blocked me when we got to: why is it that specifically Conservative parties align with the interests of the Elite? ***** There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For Conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and the status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed. In the world view of the actual Conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from or all you’ll often see “rules for thee and not for me.” The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. Consider the divinely ordained king: he can do no wrong because he is king, because he is king at God’s behest. The anti-poor aristocratic elite still feel that way. This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights too much he is working against the aristocracy. ***** If we extend analysis to the voter base: conservative voters view other conservative voters as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these assholes do nasty anti democratic things. It’s why Christians seem to ignore Christ. While a non-conservative would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad. To them Donald Trump is inherently a good person as a member of the aristocracy. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions so long as the aristocracy is being protected. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good. To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor (and the intrinsic moral state that matters is being part of the aristocracy). Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things. The one bad thing they can do is betray the class system. ***** The consequences of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality are the simple political goals to do nothing when problems arise and to dismantle labor & consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral, inherently deserve punishment, and certainly don’t deserve help. They *want* the working class to get fucked by global warming. They *want* people to die from COVID19. Etc. Montage of McConnell laughing at suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTqMGDocbVM&ab_channel=HuffPost OH LOOK, months after I first wrote this it turns out to be validated by conservatives themselves: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/trump-appointee-demanded-herd-immunity-strategy-446408 Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them for the immorality. Absolutely everything Conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above. This is powerful because you can now predict with good specificity what a conservative political actor will do. ***** We still need to address more familiar definitions of conservatism (small c) which are a weird mash-up including personal responsibility and incremental change. Neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues. The only opposed change that really matters is the destruction of the aristocracy in favor of democracy. For some reason the arguments were white washed into a general “opposition to change.” * This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote? * This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more... * We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well we’ll do 1500 families next month. * But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations. The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor. The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means “I deserve free things, but people of lower in the hierarchy don’t.” Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U ***** For good measure I found video and sources intersecting on an overlapping topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0 ***** Some links incase anyone doubts that the contemporary American voter base was purposefully machined and manipulated into its mangle of abortion, guns, war, and “fiscal responsibility.” What does fiscal responsibility even mean? No one describes themselves as fiscally irresponsible? Atwater opening up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/03/27/58058/the-religious-right-wasnt-created-to-battle-abortion/ a little academic abstract to supporting conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01 They were trying to rile a voter base up and abortion didn't do it. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html Religion and institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f https://www.salon.com/2019/07/01/the-long-southern-strategy-how-southern-white-women-drove-the-gop-to-donald-trum/ The best: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133


>There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For Conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and the status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed. This goes right down to their religious thinking. God doesn't do things and make rules because those actions and rules are good and moral. Those actions and rules are good and moral *because God did them and made them*. These are the people who hold up as virtuous a man who was willing to sacrifice his own child *because God told him to.* It's no surprise that in the conservative mindset, the virtues of Loyalty and Obedience are far more important than the virtues of Fairness and Empathy.


> These are the people who hold up as virtuous a man who was willing to sacrifice his own child because God told him to. If God himself told me to do such a thing, I would question if it were God himself. I would question my own sanity. But, if I could be sure it was God himself? I might consider it. Because it would confirm that God is ridiculously cruel, and, so, the alternative would probably be worse. But, what these people demand is not unwavering loyalty and obedience to a God who speaks directly to you. They demand unwavering loyalty and obedience *to other men.* Ones who claim to speak *for* God. They have fashioned their god in their own image. Which is probably *why* their god is so cruel.


In different versions of the "God tells you to kill your son" God either stops him or lets him. But in both cases he was entirely willing to kill his son for God. Why? Because if God stops him then God is good and worth following. If God does not, and he has proven his willingness to follow God, then God has proven his unworthiness to be followed. This is all paraphrased based on half remembered lessons.


Conservatism requires in groups that the law protects but does not bind and out groups that the law binds but does not protect. Hypocrisy is a *feature* for them.


"Still better than the democRATS" They literally don't care. These people are completely indoctrinated at this point.


"rather be Russian than be a Democrat"


Pence was a lapdog, he just couldn't get someone to plausibly justify it to the point he thought he could get away with it


Pence was a lapdog, but he (thankfully) was an even bigger coward.


That was his reasoning for calling Quayle, to try and get someone in his corner.


It’s not hyperbole to say there would probably be Civil War if they pulled off a coup.


Exactly what they want.


"See how the violent left reacts to the will of the people?"


Unruly violence for thee, patriotic defense for me.


It’s what they _think_ they want. They have no idea just how bad it would really be. Everything is interconnected and supply chains would be greatly disrupted. They naively believe it would be over quickly with little loss on their end.


The three percenters believe that if three percent of the population rises up that the rest of the country would follow them. We call those people “morons.”


No,.. We call them "Fucking Morons" like what Donald Trumps own Secretary of State and his Chief of Staff and Military Advisers called him...


correction: The three percenters believe that they can use guns, violence and terrorism to control the other 97% of the country.


I think its based on how many SS troops and collaborators the nazi's needed to keep control of occupied countries.


I wish they would just do it already. Oh, but wait, their guns have no ammo because every time a Democrat gets elected to the Presidency gun sales go through the roof and manufacturers hold back on ammo production to keep the rubes handing over their money for the foreseeable future.


They also believe the military will not shoot at them, even though they themselves would shoot at the military.


A frightening percent of the military wouldn't. Look at Flynn. Guy is a straight up traitor, yet got off with no penalties in the end, and still has his full security access and is BELOVED by a scary percentage of enlisted. I have even heard that he has been visiting some bases in Florida and allowed to basically wander where wants and do what he wants.


Just like in the last Civil War. It would drag on, get really deadly, terrorists would attack, but int he end, the non -crazy coalition of non Right Wingers would prevail. But holy shit, millions could die. And our nation would be weak as hell afterwords.


If they perform a coup and start a civil war millions *will* die, because they will not stop until the military kills them. They're beyond help, they no longer believe in reality, nor do they accept facts as true. If they push this country to a civil war, it will not end until millions of trump's fascists end up dead, along with however many innocent people they kill before they are stopped.


Yep. Full on Christian Taliban. And like the Taliban they will keep coming back because they think they are divinely chosen to lead


Not to mention China would become the undisputed superpower overnight.


> They have no idea just how bad it would really be. Everything is interconnected and supply chains would be greatly disrupted. Ports of LA, Long Beach, Stockton, Sacramento, Portland, and Seattle all shut down imports that travel east of the CA border. Middle America starves in a week?


Sure would be interesting to watch them secede, have literally no fucking money, and blame the left for being broke. Because in general democrat states generate ALL the fucking money. These idiots have no idea.


It would not be interesting. Every single American would be impacted and have their lives completely flipped upside-down. Edit: This is a [dasymetric dot density map](https://media.wired.com/photos/5b59eab77756071a9b78f1ee/master/w_1200,c_limit/Dasymetric-Dot-Density-w.jpg) that plots every 2016 vote counted across the country, right and left. I cannot imagine that the 2020 map is much less of a total mess.


But the white on that map should also count as red! ~GQP


And it would go on for years, dismantling economies. Do they stop for moment to think what Civil War 2 will do to the Dow?


That's the wrong question, the question is, would they accept if Kamala Harris decides on her own who the next president is? Because if they think that Pence could decide who the president is, then Kamala now can do the same.


Nah they're openly hypocrites and would get angry over that because it's "different" and not their side doing it. They believe their side won and Pence would be righting a wrong. Harris would be 'stealing' an election, even though it really is the exact same scenario.


And just because you "feel" the election was fraudulent without any evidence doesn't justify a coup.


Yeah but (Hillary, BLM Portland Riots, Border Crisis, Woke things and other false equivalent subject changes)! What about that?! Huh?! (PS: /s for the truly dense)


Buttery males.


Former constitution conservative here. I’m a democrat now. Hated trump since I first saw him on the apprentice (I’m 27) when he ran in 2016 I did the stupid thing alot of under 23s did and voted third party (yeah the dude who didn’t know where Aleppo was) than I saw how full of shit the R’s are. Adding 8 trillion to the debt spitting in the face of democracy and forcing in judges like no tomorrow. If I had the perspective I do at this age in 2016 I would’ve definitely voted/lobbied for Hillary. I will never vote “R” again and I’m ashamed to say I fell for alot of the same “socialism” scare tactic BS fellow Cubans do. Edited only to say: I still believe in constitution conservatism but at the end of the day if it’s rules for only one side is it really a rule? Times evolve and change if we don’t roll and adjust with em we’ll fall apart. America isn’t owed anything in the world and we’re not the “greatest” cause we say/think we are. These last 5 years taught we just gotta be better.


They don’t care. You can’t shame them, you can’t guilt them, they only want power no matter the process or cost.


> BTW: for all you Constitutional Conservatives out there, how does this hang with you? Serious question.. we had a sitting President try to override our democracy and install himself for a 2nd term. In my experience, conservatives who constantly talk about following the Constitution think it's a document that says "do whatever is best for the Republican Party." They might not even recognize that consciously themselves, but that's sure what their actual behaviors seem to indicate.


Using the word "constitution" is just conservative virtue signaling. It means nothing of substance. The reference it to make them sound scholarly and like the true Patriots. They claim everything they believe in is based on the constitution and everything Democrats want to do is unconstitutional by default. The most recent example being vaccine mandates being deemed "unconstitutional" despite the fact that George Washington himself mandated inoculations in the continental army


> Using the word "constitution" is just conservative virtue signaling. Yep. Unfortunately, the American flag has pretty much become the same thing, ever since people decided that kneeling to protest injustice and inequality was somehow un-American.


It's not virtue signalling. It's trying to shift blame. You see, conservatives aren't assholes trying to overthrow an election, they're just following the constitution. They don't have a choice. Same thing with any of their religious arguments. They don't have anything against gay people getting married, it's just that pesky Jesus. They're just following orders. Or appending "Judeo" in front of "Christian" when they try to defend any of those policies. It can't be all their fault, because obviously Jews also support their ideas!


Remember when Trump was considering Flynn as his VP? That timeline would’ve been insane.


>for all you Constitutional Conservatives out there Stop assuming that conservatives actually follow the principles they claim to have. If you operate under the assumption that they're all bad-faith actors, you won't ever be disappointed.


Stop pretending conservatives have values


I'm self proclaimed Constitutional Conservative and I was/am disgusted. Trump and everything he has done is the antithesis of the Constitution's goals and motives


This isn't a Trump problem. It's a GOP problem. The Republicans have a problem with constitutional laws. It goes back to J Edgar Hoover (who privately admitted he was a lifelong supporter of the Republican party) and all of his malfeasance. Then there is Nixon and his attacks on the liberal and black communities. We can't forget all the chicanery of the Reagan administration. I mean they broke the law seven times alone during the Iran-Contra affair and then Bush pardoned them all with the Christmas pardons. Trump is the natural evolution of the Republican party. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves and others.


> This isn't a Trump problem. It's a GOP problem. Exactly. If this was just a Trump thing, he would never have even won the nomination in 2016. The GOP created the situation where he was a viable candidate, the GOP picked him, the GOP supported his insurrection, and the GOP continues to pretend he did nothing wrong. They're all to blame.


"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." - Barry Goldwater I see your point of going back to Hoover to examine how we got here. He was a zealot who wiped his ass with the Constitution with his actions. The alleged letter to MLK trying to get him to commit suicide? Insane... but I really think the big turning point where we see the Republican party fall into full blown hypocrisy is the incorporation of evangelicals into the party. I've never understood how any one who claims to be a Constitutional conservative can support having a "Christian" influence on our laws


The Evangelicals are absolutely a problem, but we need only look at Nixon's behavior like sabotaging peace talks in Vietnam (Reagan also did the same with the the hostage talks in 1980). But Ehrlichman really drove the point home with this: >You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” Is it strictly unconstitutional? No. Is it subverting the laws to get a nefarious outcome restricting the constitutional rights (specifically to vote) of our fellow Americans? You bet your ass it is.


“How does this hang with you” I assume that pun was for Mr. Pence.


They don’t give a fuck. My dad still thinks the election was stolen from Trump. When I brought up that there is 0 evidence and tossed out of every court they tried to go it his response was “well when the crooks are the ones doing the investigation that’s how that goes”. So fucking brainwashed that I want to slap some sense into him.


Fortunately Pence leaned on the wisdom of noted constitutional scholar Dan Quayle in making his decision.


This will forever be how I think of Pence. The man asked Dan fucking Quayle for advice. I can't even anymore.


That's Pence' high point.


Who would you rather he ask? *Cheney*? He's obviously not going to Biden or Gore.


The very same Trump lawyer (traitor to our country John Eastman) who volunteered Pence to steal the election for Trump co-authored an Op-Ed saying Biden was wrong for not invoking Presidential immunity and allowing the Executive branch to cooperate with the current Congressional investigation into Jan 6th. Now we can see what these scoundrels were trying to hide...an attempted insurrection. We always knew but now have confirmation that Republicans will steal elections if they cannot win them, they will suppress votes from those not likely to vote for them, they will collude with and take money from hostile foreign governments and corporations (and change foreign policy to compensate for those bribes/Emoluments), they will game the system, and all the while will be screaming that Democratic voters are trying to steal the election by voting against them. Traitors, scoundrels, and thieves. They need to be locked up.


The "Plan": >>Pence would declare that there were competing electors in seven states, which would lead to him throwing out the Electoral College votes in the said states; Pence would then declare Trump the winner of the election. That's it. That's the plan. Just coordinate the efforts of seven states so they send an additional set of delegates (ones that will represent the loser) with the ones that are slated to go (the ones that represent the voters). Then just... say (?) "Oh, wow look at that! Some of the states here today have *two* sets of electors...!?!? I guess that means we completely throw out the voting representation of those states. Interesting, that means Donald Trump is the winner." Apply this to *any* other contest and see if it still holds water. "Wait, what's this? Florida sent *two* teams to the Super Bowl? Well it doesn't matter that Miami has no right to be here, we'll just have to disqualify Tampa Bay and declare Kansas City the champs!"


it was never going to be complicated. It was always going to be a combination of a bullshit legal maneuver and "what are you going to do about it". All it takes is for the base to back it and enough independents to shrug their shoulders.


>"what are you going to do about it". This, coups don't happen through legal maneuvering. They happen by force and willpower.


> > >>Pence would declare that there were competing electors in seven states, which would lead to him throwing out the Electoral College votes in the said states; Pence would then declare Trump the winner of the election. > > That's it. That's the plan. > Just coordinate the efforts of seven states so they send an additional set of delegates (ones that will represent the loser) with the ones that are slated to go (the ones that represent the voters). > Then just... say (?) "Oh, wow look at that! Some of the states here today have *two* sets of electors...!?!? I guess that means we completely throw out the voting representation of those states. Interesting, that means Donald Trump is the winner." How would that not have ended with the country in civil war? I could totally see states on the west coast and New England straight up declaring independence with texas doing as well because others are doing it. A maneuver like that would end all legitimacy of the US federal government.


Parts of the far-right already has lost faith in the legitimacy of the US federal government. They were pushing that narrative because they thought *they could win a civil war*. Before they were banned heavy conservative sub-Reddit’s were openly talking about civil war.


>Before they were banned heavy conservative sub-Reddit’s were openly talking about civil war. They have been for a long while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEoa9IyVxoA#t=2m53s


It all would have come down to what the military would have done. The top command **and** the rank and file. Whoever the military would have listened to would have come on top. If it was divided, it would have been a civil war.


That's why Trump replacing people in key positions right before the election was legitimately haunting.


I thought for sure he was making a play like this. I’m surprised it failed so spectacularly. I expect him to call for martial law, etc… I think if the result had been less convincingly a win for Biden, some more of the republican legislators might even have backed him. Terrifying.


Trump should be in jail for treason or abuse of power for even contemplating an idea like this. This has to be one of the biggest attempted betrayals in American history.


Damn. As a Miami fan, it’s been hard enough, I thought /r/politics was a refuge Haha. You gotta diss us here!?


I have a very very very stupid question. Is there any legal/constitutional basis to any of this? I an afraid that they could actually just do that next time. That right wing governors could just send extra delegates or otherwise mishandle the process to throw out thier own votes if they didn't like how thier people voted


Here's a good explanation: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/15/technology/fake-dueling-slates-of-electors.html Short answer: No they can't do that. Is it 100% protected legally and Constitutionally? No, not exactly. But as someone else pointed out, if one state did this, and the VP 'accepted it', then what's the point of the popular vote (ergo, what's the point in having a democratic vote at all)?


I always thought that was weird - if you guys remember there were Trump "electors" from some states going to Washington that were not ones sent by their state. At the time I was wondering what the hell they were doing, like they think they can just go to DC and represent when their guy lost? Now, with this memo it makes sense that this was a coordinated effort to overthrow a United State Presidential election. If this memo is legit the FBI needs to get to the bottom of this shit like yesterday and conspiracy charges filed. This wasn't just a plan - they were actually implementing it.


>coordinated effort Exactly. Communications amongst Trump, his lawyers, his VP, members of Congress loyal to him, and GOP state legislatures. Again, apply the “regular guy” lens to this. Interstate criminal conspiracy. Dozens of people complicit. And go ahead and ratchet up the seriousness of how wrong this all is when you come to the realization of the **guaranteed** ‘quid pro quo’ and bribes (money or favors) tied to this. “Want a place in my next administration? Just do as I say”. “You do this for me and it can be your turn to be Secretary of State”


>However, Pence refused to intervene, arguing that he did not have the authority beyond counting the votes. Now we all know that was really Dan Quayle telling Pence he couldn't appease his dictator and just do his fucking job as vice president and certify the vote.


So basically Dan Fucking Quayle saved democracy in the United States. I did not see that coming.




I always felt a little sorry for him about this. He knows that he's not the sharpest bulb in the box, so when a teacher gives him the list of words the kids are learning, he's going to think twice about questioning the teacher. He probably even thought, "huh, I always spelled it as potato. Have I been spelling it wrong all this time?"


I saw Dan Quayle speak somewhere in person once long ago, can't even remember where or why, but it was after potatoegate. I just remember leaving thinking that all the shit he got for that was undeserved. He came off as a kind, thoughtful and articulate man. I don't line up with his politics but he really seemed to be a decent human being.


I came from his "hometown", and was in the highschool marching band at the time. I was annoyed with how we were (literally) paraded around to try to present him as a small-town Indiana man when he barely even lived here. I hated his politics and laughed when he got dragged during the debates and afterwards as VP. But man, I would love to go back to 80s political discourse and politicians like Quayle in a second. I can handle fake/degrading/pretentious over batshit insane any day.


I once won my class's Spelling Bee competition \*flex\*, and I honestly still don't know if it's potato or potatoe. Don't even ask me how to pluralize it.


In 25 years, "potato’s” will probably be considered correct by way of common usage.


I felt bad in the same way for Howard Dean also. When he “screamed” into the microphone, the microphone wasn’t picking up the crowd noise and made it sound wacky. In reality, he was yelling to be heard in a loud, excited crowd.


It should be part of civics courses to understand ad hominmen arguments to make the population more robust against them. I don't even know his policies, not that it would have mattered, I was a kid then anyways. But obviously, if you are disqualified for any reason, it should be your policies, not some meme.


He could have salvaged that in claiming he added an E for Effort, but like you said, not the sharpest hamster on the pear tree.


He's a true American heroe.


Yikes. Imagine if Pence was a devout Trump sycophant and this actually happened.


The next Republican VP absolutely will be.


Man, that sure does seem like "motive" spelling it all out like that. Too bad there's no evidence of them all putting all of this into action or anything. Like the author of this memo, John Eastman, [speaking at the riot kickoff](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/14/john-eastman-chapman-university-departure/). Or, you know, everything Trump has done since the election, especially on January 6th.


> “Our hearts and minds are with the people being persecuted so unfairly relating to the January 6th protest concerning the Rigged Presidential Election” \-Trump Quote of Trump, talking about the person at the forefront of the insurrection, breaking through police barricades and assaulting the house floor: > “Who is the person that shot an innocent, wonderful, incredible woman, a military woman, right in the head?” Quote from Trump when he called The family of Brian Sicknick who died defending the capitol: >“”


Let’s be honest, it’s a good thing Trump didn’t try to call the family. Remember when he treated the El Paso mass shooting as a photo op and posed smiling with thumbs up with a baby that had become orphaned in the shooting? https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/president-trump-smiles-gives-thumbs-up-in-photo-with-baby-orphaned-in-el-paso-massacre


Or when he told a soldier's widow "He knew what he signed up for." https://www.ajc.com/news/national/sgt-david-johnson-widow-trump-said-knew-what-signed-for/fY9xBSJBda6usczKrbH5RL/


Or when he ambushed a U.K. couple mourning their son who was killed by a US citizen who fled the country. They were expecting assurances by the President of getting justice. But he surprised them by telling them their sons murderer was waiting in the next room for some kind of reunion where they could forgive her. Absolute psychopath.


“"No, no, no!" Trump shouted. "You don't understand, Mike. You can do this. I don't want to be your friend anymore if you don't do this."” From the timing and the context surrounding it, I think it’s meaning was, “I’m sending the crazies, if you don’t want to die, cheat the election…”


What grown man says 'I don't want to be your friend anymore...'?


It was a veiled threat. Trump is pretty notorious for doing this. It had nothing to do with being his friend.


No grown man says this. trump is not a grown man.


Also he was never Pence's friend


Well, a gangster who says "I don't want to be your friend" then looks over at his henchmen and shoots his eyes at Pence. Maybe that kind of grown up man.


I don't think most of Reddit understands this statement. Put it in the same context as the Georgia phone call. This is not a childish tantrum; it's a NYC mafia threat. i.e. l take care of my friends; they don't get in trouble, they don't get hurt. If you're not my friend any more...


If you bring this up to anybody who likes Trump it will always be the same, "But Hilary said there was fraud too!!!" The thing is though, Hilary didn't go around pressuring Secretaries of States to over turn results.


She also congratulated Trump and gave a speech when he won about how she was sad but we should accept him as president. This was right after though. I know she has made some subsequent sparky comments toward him.


In a way, I can't blame her. Pretty hard to imagine someone like him would be able to win fairly after all he did leading up to the election.


I get that the language is simplistic, but the implication isn't that Mike Pence would no longer be Trump's friend, it's that Trump would no longer consider Pence to be trustworthy. It's Trump's stupid euphemistic way of speaking. It means "you will no longer be an ally, which means I will no longer protect you when my followers attack you." Which we literally saw later that day - they had a gallows set up and were hunting Pence, and Trump didn't try to curb the mob's efforts.


Guess what? Mikey Pence's brother is no longer his brother either. His brother wanted hang him in January 6th.


Not sure I would go that far, but Greg Pence sure comes across as a true believer in the cult. Mike Pence never really did, despite giving it a good try.


> "Mike Pence never really did, despite giving it a good try." I guess we should be thankful that nothing comes between Mike Pence and Jesus.


not even Mother


Which likely means they knew what Pence was doing before he had done it. It all smells of someone on the inside directing the mob.


Just a friendly reminder that everyday we’re hurtling toward minority, authoritarian rule. And everyday we’re also finding out how much we weren’t aware the extend to which we’ve already hurtled.


All thanks to a huge swath of the people swallowing lie after lie.


And swallowing horse paste to own the libs plandemic.


Jan 4, and Jan 6. That explains the rioting, it wasn't to shut down the counting process, it was to pressure Pence to strip 7 states in the union of their electors.


This to me is the most disturbing part, I’ve had conservative people during all this tell me “why not let the legal process play out?” And I’m like are you that dense? The legal process is a sham to give political cover for something else. I wasn’t sure what the something else was but knew something was completely Un American about this whole process. Really opened my eyes to gullible and stupid some of our fellow Americans are. You want to win the battle of ideas within the frame work of democracy. Trying a soft coup because you’re shitty at defending your policies is the exact definition of un american.


>why not let the legal process play out We did. They still lost. This wasn't a legal process, it was an attempted end run around the legal processes.


There were no multiple slates of electors. That is part of the Big Lie. Each state legislature sent exactly one certified slate. In several states, the Republican Party submitted their own slates of electors, but they were not the certified state electors. It was all for show so they could make these ludicrous claims.


"I don't want to be your friend anymore if you don't do this" sounds like something a seven year old would say, or a Mafia don would say. One of the two


This is exactly what I thought. Someone read me this quote a couple days ago but they read it in the “waaa waaa, you’re not my friend anymore” elementary school voice, but I think it’s actually more likely letting Pence know Trump was ready to throw him under the bus and try to ruin his life if he didn’t do what Trump wanted.


You're right; that's exactly what it means. We know from the call with the Ukraine Pres and the Georgia Sec. State, that the former president is well versed in mobspeak.


It's like in The Departed when Mr. French is threatening Billy and says "I'll forget your grandmother was so nice to me" He's not saying he'll have a sudden bout of amnesia. He's saying he'll stop justify protecting Billy because of his familial connections.


And yet none of these people are being prosecuted. The green light has been given that it's ok to do this kind of shit. We are in trouble.


Leaving 1/6 out of the equation, it appears that a coup was attempted with 45 attempting to subvert the election. There seems like more than enough evidence to bring him to trial on this. Each day that he isn't locked up the republic dies just a bit more. And for those saying the right would revolt if their cult leader was charged, and? They're living in their own reality anyway and are literally killing this country and holding it back from the 21st century. It's way past time the kid gloves came off and they were dealt with.


Honestly, it could have worked. The only legislative recourse would probably have been the immediate emergency impeachment of Pence, and there are enough Republicans to refuse to do that (like they did with Trump). And if Pence had tried to do this, and Congress tried to remove him, the mob comes in (except now Trump is using the legislative chaos as a fig leaf to call for the arrest of Democrats). It takes the whole thing from the 5-alarm fire to a 7-alarm. And if Republicans had taken majorities in the House and maintained them in the Senate, it's entirely plausible that they use the time Capitol Police were clearing the building to forge a "compromise" among legislators to just let Trump stay President "until this can all be sorted out in the courts". And we'd have crisis after crisis until Trump's lunatics in-and-out-of-government twist every arm they can and people get used to the new normal (as we always do). And by the next election, elections don't matter anymore. This was a coup with nearly all of the pieces, but the conspirators were just a little to flat-footed and a little too reactive to pull it off. And they've learned their lessons, so they're already planning it better for next time.


JFC. It very well could’ve played out this way. You’ve got a good handle on the Reps’ strategy. Have a hate upvote! ;)


This is beyond shameful.


Here's the word-for-word, [6-step plan to overthrow the election](https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/20/eastman.memo.pdf), which was written by Trump lawyer John Eastman and shared with Pence for consideration: > So here’s the scenario we propose: > 1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if > Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with > Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral > Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required). > 2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, > and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This > would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act. > 3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, > there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That > means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th > Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been > advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the > electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for > Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected. > 4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior > position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th > Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the > matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the > representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently > control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. > President Trump is re-elected there as well. > 5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon > getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their > separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on > debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining > the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully > argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules > (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the > state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate > of electors, if they had not already done so. > 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission > – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side > challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President > of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would > press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable > political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The > fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the > ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.


It’s time to stop fucking around. Garland needs to pull his head from his ass and start charging people with seditious conspiracy under 18 USC 2384 ([text of statute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384)). I’ve been hesitant to go this far. But the more we learn, the more it becomes apparent that there were people both within our government and civilians acting in concert with them who were attempting to overthrow the government. It sounds dramatic but there is no other way to put it. This was an attempt to seize power through unlawful and illegitimate means after losing an election. This was an attempted coup. The DOJ needs to stop pretending that this was harmless. We need to stop treating this like a legitimate political position. We need to call it what it was: a seditious conspiracy.


And who do we have to thank for Pence not attempting this cockamamie soft coup? Dan fucking Quayle. If he wasn't like "shut the fuck up Mikey, you're out of your element" and was more like "wow, I never considered that, but I'm not sold on it being constitutional" there could be a civil war going on right now.


How is this not considered treason?


"No, no, no!" Trump shouted. "You don't understand, Mike. You can do this. I don't want to be your friend anymore if you don't do this." Oh, no!


The exact opposite of a problem.


It's clear the former president is well versed in mobspeak and I think "I don't want to be your friend anymore..." holds deeper connotations than being removed from his Christmas card list.


Read that memo carefully, it will be exactly what happens in 2024. This country is dead and the fascists in the GQP killed it.


Well it won’t be exactly what happens, since Kamala will the the one presiding. But what we have to watch out for is Secretary’s of state not certifying the actual results. We should all be very concerned if the replace Georgia and Arizona’s election officials with someone who will not stand up to Trump.




Sounds illegal. Garland?… Garland?… Garland?… Garland?…


Goddamn, the backflips and somersaults they were trying to do to win. Sad.


Wow. This is horrifying.


Does treason mean a god-damned thing around here ?


Vote Blue in 22 Vote these GQP bastards out!!


Lol. Trump paved the precedent. I'm sure someone like him will succeed in the future.