Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

BlueGreenLady

(2,823 posts)
1. I re-watched Thursday's testimony via YouTube
Fri Jun 17, 2022, 04:49 PM
Jun 2022

And set the speed to 2X. It made many of the speeches more comprehensible to me.

Scrivener7

(50,773 posts)
3. I still don't get his point where he was saying there was a historic precedent, regardless of
Fri Jun 17, 2022, 04:57 PM
Jun 2022

the speed. He said there was a historic precedent. There has been none.

None of the VPs he listed decided any elections.

"All the players, led by Mr. Eastman, got wrapped around the axel by the historical evidence claim by Mr. Eastman. Let me explain very simply. ... In short, if I had been advising the vice president on Jan. 6, and even if then vice president Jefferson, and even then vice president John Adams, and even then vice president Richard Nixon, had done exactly what the president of the United States wanted his vice president do to do, i would have laid my body across the road before I'd have let the vice president overturn the 2020 election on the basis of that historical precedent. But what this body needs to know and now America needs to know, is that that was the centerpiece of the plan to overturn the 2020 election it was the historical precedent in the years and with the vice presidents that I named. As Congressman Raskin understands well. The effort by Mr. Eastman was to drive the historical precedent under that single pristine sentence in the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution, taking advantage of, if you will, what many have said is the 'inartful wording' of that sentence in the 12th Amendment."



Just no!

wishstar

(5,267 posts)
7. He was referring to previous elections where Congress members objected to electors
Fri Jun 17, 2022, 05:33 PM
Jun 2022

such as 2005 when 31 Democrats objected to electors from Ohio when GW Bush won.

That is why the judge made the pointed remark about Jamie Raskin knowing what he was talking about because in 2017 Raskin objected to electors from Florida when Trump won.

Scrivener7

(50,773 posts)
11. Thank you! But that's horrifying! So the historic precedence is people objecting to
Fri Jun 17, 2022, 06:51 PM
Jun 2022

electors and those objections not going anywhere, but they wanted to use it to overturn an election that was not close.

I really can't stand these people.

But I have asked that question a few times and you were the first to give a logical answer. Thank you.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
4. I guess I understand my social life, or lack thereof, much better now
Fri Jun 17, 2022, 04:57 PM
Jun 2022

Because my speech patterns have always been * a lot * like luttig's....

rsdsharp

(9,035 posts)
5. If he asked questions of counsel from the 4th Circuit bench
Fri Jun 17, 2022, 05:01 PM
Jun 2022

the same way he answered questions yesterday, the only possible response would be:

“I’m sorry, Your Honor, I don’t understand. Could you rephrase the question (in English)?”

gibraltar72

(7,486 posts)
10. Actually I was annoyed at first
Fri Jun 17, 2022, 06:34 PM
Jun 2022

Then I thought he understands the gravity and thinks about every word he is saying.

 

Dysfunctional

(452 posts)
12. I found the original to be more profound.
Fri Jun 17, 2022, 07:01 PM
Jun 2022

It seemed to me that he was making sure that what he said was exactly what he wanted to convey.

doc03

(35,143 posts)
13. Last night Stephen Colbert played a little of his talk and when Colbert
Fri Jun 17, 2022, 07:05 PM
Jun 2022

came back on he had a long white beard.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So much better without th...