Our Republics cord was never so thin when it came down to Mike Pence and what he thought was right. A God fearing man wouldn't go along with Donald Trump and his group of coup inspirators and that is why we are a free country today.

Were it not for him, we would be in totalitarian hell right now and everyone knows it. If you know that then you also have to know that everything behind Donald Trump was wrong because it would not survive a man of God that they thought would go along with the plan.

When you go against the very thing that is printed on our money, you're going to find that somewhere someone is going to stand up for what is right and Mike Pence will go down in history one of America's finest Patriots.

Thank God for Mike Pence!




The Hill
Republicans back Pence rebuke of Trump on overturning 2020 election
Sun, February 6, 2022, 2:03 PM



A number of GOP figures on Sunday said they backed former Vice President Mike Pence in his rebuke of former President Trump's claim that he had the authority to overturn the 2020 election results.

Pence made headlines on Friday when he broke from Trump in the clearest terms yet, saying the former president was "wrong" in believing he had the right to overturn the election when he oversaw the official count of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021. The former vice president called Trump's suggestion "un-American."

"I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people, and the American people alone," Pence said at a Federalist Society event on Friday.

His comments came days after Trump issued a statement saying he believed Pence had the authority to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Trump's favor.

Pence refused to give in to Trump's pressure and block the certification of the Electoral College results in January 2021. Pence has indicated that he did not know if he and Trump would "ever see eye to eye on that day."

Several Republicans on Sunday came to Pence's defense, saying they agreed he had no authority to single-handedly give Trump a second term.

Former Pence chief of staff Marc Short on Sunday said Trump's suggestion that the vice president could have overturned the election results "merited response," which was why the former vice president chose to address Trump's comments.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told CBS's "Face the Nation" that "vice presidents can't simply decide not to certify an election" when asked if he agreed with Pence.

Pressed on if he believes the former president's suggestion was wrong, Rubio said he would not want Vice President Harris to overturn the results if Trump were to win reelection in the future.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told "Fox News Sunday" that Pence "did his constitutional duty that day."

"It's not the Congress that elects the president, it's the American people," he added.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) said "the actions the vice president took on Jan. 6 spoke loudly," adding that he was "glad" Pence "finally put words to it."

"I don't know why it took him so long, but I'm glad that he did," Christie said.

Christie, who served as a Trump adviser, called the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol an effort by the former president "to intimidate Mike Pence and the Congress into doing exactly what he said in his own words last week, overturn the election."

And during an appearance on "Face the Nation," H.R. McMaster, who served as national security adviser under Trump, said he "absolutely" agreed with Pence's take on Trump's comments when asked about the remarks.

"All Americans should agree with Vice President Pence," McMaster said.

"It's time ... I think, to demand more from our political leaders, demand that they stop compromising confidence in our democratic principles and institutions and processes to score partisan political points. And as you know, this happens across both political parties and it's just time to stop," he added.

Trump's statement in question specifically pointed to Congress's push to reform the Electoral Count Act as proof that Pence had the power to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The 1887 statute outlines how Electoral College votes are counted.

The effort to reform the decades-old law is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill, with members from both parties viewing the initiative as a bipartisan compromise to addressing voting reform - a top legislative initiative among Democrats that has since stalled amid internal party clashes regarding Senate rules.

A coalition of Senate Democrats rolled out legislation on Tuesday that would clarify that the vice president's role in overseeing the electoral vote count is ceremonial and increase the number of House and Senate lawmakers needed to back an objection before a vote is triggered in the chamber. Under the law now, only one member in each chamber is required.

The legislation also calls for upping the threshold for upholding the objection from a simple majority in both chambers to three-fifths in the House and Senate.

At the same time, a separate, bipartisan group of senators - comprised of 16 lawmakers - is working on its own proposal to reform the arcane law. That group is led by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

Manchin on Sunday told CNN's "State of the Union" that the true source of the Jan. 6 insurrection was the "ambiguity" behind the rules for counting of the Electoral College vote, noting that the regulations were "not clear."

He said the bill the bipartisan group is working on would fix that issue.

"What really caused the insurrection? They thought there was a kind of ambiguity - ambiguity, if you will, and there was an avenue they could go through and maybe overturn the election, because there was. It was not clear," Manchin said.

"And when one congressman and one senator can bring a state's authentic count to a halt, it's wrong, and basically not protecting the electors, and you can change electors before you send the here, after the election, all these things. This is what we're going to fix. And we have a group right now that's continuing to grow," he added.

I think intimidation in the 2020 election was practiced on people widely.
The powerful groups allied themselves to eliminate an individual who did not respond to the pressure they could exert.
It is good to read the article "to save democracy" that was published in Times magazine.
Although VP Pence could not determine if one candidate or another was certified, he could question those certifications from the states, which had been received twice: one by the State Executive and the other by the Legislative, which would force the Supreme Court to act accordingly.
I do not sympathize with any man, but with what he proposes to do; and if what Biden was proposing was good, I would have supported it, but it has been shown that those who voted for him were wrong.
It should be a consolation to those who understand the mistake they made in voting for Biden, that he was not elected by the votes of the citizens, but by the maneuvers of those who count the votes, who are more important, than those who vote, according to what Comrade Stalin said.
I don't think Pence has saved democracy in any way, although I can say that, at least, he chose the easy way out of not asking trouble for himself.

The proposed change that Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, Rules Committee Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) proposal predate the shocking news of alternate electors. They propose 'changes to the President of Senate's active role in counting votes.' The group wants to clarify that the vice president's role is ceremonial and increase the number of lawmakers that need to sign onto an objection in order to force a vote. In the 2020 election, 147 lawmakers objected to counting votes in 5 states. Had the 'Act' been followed by Pence, a recount of those states would have taken place, as how the Bush vise Gore was handled. The original 'Act' allows for a 'safe harbor' for states that submit their electoral results six days before the Electoral College convenes, which means a state can change their minds and send in a competing set of results. This alone may be the why, as you call them 'fake' electors were standing by to carry out the will of the states involved.

Amazingly, Democrats used very same 'Act' in 3 modern-day elections to change the outcome of the election. But, with the 2020 election being questioned by millions, the 'Act' has to be rewritten.