Judge Michael Luttig

[learn to fly]

“That declaration of Donald Trump as the next president would have plunged America into what I believe would’ve been tantamount to a revolution within a constitutional crisis in America, which in my view, and I am only one man, would’ve been the first constitutional crisis since the founding of the Republic.” — Judge Michael Luttig

[learn to fly]

Take a moment consider this. This is not the hair-on-fire, over-wrought, frantic hyperbole of Resistance Twitter.

The warning about “a revolution within a constitutional crisis,” didn’t come from Rachel Maddow, the guys who run Pod Save America, the NYT’s editorial page, or the usual prophets of Armageddon.

This was Michael Luttig, a conservative’s conservative; a former federal appeals court judge, who was on George Bush’s short-list for the Supreme Court.

[bmw]

A lot of people want Trump taken out or severely damaged so he can't win again in 2024.

We get it.

[bmw]

And just to be clear, it wouldn't have been as simple as "declaring" Trump as President. He would have had to win in the court system in enough states to get his electoral vote up to 270+. That was the only path he even theoretically had to the presidency. Sure, he put pressure on certain people to take other paths, but none of them would have held up in Court, so I don't know how we would have had a Constitutional crisis even if one of those paths had been temporarily taken.

[TC Talks]

A lot of people want Trump taken out or severely damaged so he can't win again in 2024.

We get it.

Trump has a pack of blinded morans who will support him over any loyalty to the country or constitution.

We get it.

[Honeyman]

And just to be clear, it wouldn't have been as simple as "declaring" Trump as President. He would have had to win in the court system in enough states to get his electoral vote up to 270+. That was the only path he even theoretically had to the presidency. Sure, he put pressure on certain people to take other paths, but none of them would have held up in Court, so I don't know how we would have had a Constitutional crisis even if one of those paths had been temporarily taken.

So you are claiming you know more about Constitutional law than Michael Luttig?

[bmw]

I would need to see his entire quote in context to know exactly what "that" was. He says "that declaration." What declaration is he speaking of exactly? Declaration by whom? And when? And by what process? My comment is in the context of it wasn't as simple as just somebody declaring him President.

[Honeyman]

I would need to see his entire quote in context to know exactly what "that" was. He says "that declaration." What declaration is he speaking of exactly? Declaration by whom? And when? And by what process? My comment is in the context of it wasn't as simple as just somebody declaring him President.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/1 ... g-00040255

[bmw]

A lot of people want Trump taken out or severely damaged so he can't win again in 2024.

We get it.

Trump has a pack of blinded morans who will support him over any loyalty to the country or constitution.

We get it.

The people on the left who want Trump destroyed would never vote for any alternative candidate with an (R) after their name. So that makes your efforts seem disingenuous at best.

Your side can't put up a candidate who can even defeat someone who you view as a domestic terrorist. What does that say about how weak the Democrats are?

[bmw]

I would need to see his entire quote in context to know exactly what "that" was. He says "that declaration." What declaration is he speaking of exactly? Declaration by whom? And when? And by what process? My comment is in the context of it wasn't as simple as just somebody declaring him President.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/1 ... g-00040255

The quote you started this post with does not appear in that transcript. The closest thing I can find is:

Had the Vice President of the United States obeyed the President of the United States, America would immediately have been plunged into what would have been tantamount to a revolution within a paralyzing constitutional crisis.

That's very different than simply declaring Trump as President. He's saying that if Pence had blocked certification of the final result that we would have had a Constitutional crisis.

And Mike Pence's legal counsel disagrees with that assertion and has essentially said what I did - that such a blocking wouldn't have held up in court.

Former Vice President Mike Pence’s chief counsel laid out in a memo the day before Jan. 6, 2021, that the vice president would violate federal law if he bowed to pressure from President Donald J. Trump to interfere with the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.

The three-page memo, obtained by Politico and confirmed as authentic by The New York Times, included arguments from the chief counsel, Greg Jacob, that Mr. Pence could find himself in a legally precarious situation if he decided to block the certification of the Electoral College results either unilaterally or by calling for a 10-day delay in the proceedings.

A lawyer advising Mr. Trump, John Eastman, had insisted that Mr. Pence had the power to take both of those actions, emphasizing the 10-day delay as Jan. 6 grew closer. Mr. Eastman pressed his claims in a meeting with Mr. Pence and Mr. Jacob in the Oval Office on Jan. 4.

But Mr. Pence, who in the weeks after the election told Mr. Trump that he did not believe he had such power but would continue researching the matter, was given concrete guidance by his own aides.

Mr. Jacob wrote in the memo that Mr. Pence would most likely be overruled by the courts if he made such a move.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/11/us/p ... trump.html

"Most likely" being overruled by the courts is very different from a "Constitutional crisis."

[TC Talks]

So, this is how things in a peaceful society should be handled? You remain delusional.

An angry mob with baseball bats and pepper spray chanting “hang Mike Pence” came within 40 feet of the vice president. Mr. Pence’s Secret Service detail had to hustle him to safety and hold him for nearly five hours in the bowels of the Capitol. Mr. Trump called Mr. Pence a “wimp” and worse in a coarse and abusive call that morning from the Oval Office, Mr. Trump’s daughter and former White House aides testified.

And a confidential witness who traveled to Washington with the Proud Boys, the most prominent of the far-right groups that helped lead the assault on the Capitol, later told investigators the group would have killed Mr. Pence — and Speaker Nancy Pelosi — if they got the chance.

Those were among the extraordinary new details that emerged during the third public hearing held Thursday by the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the United States Capitol.

[Ben Zonia]

Let us not forget that Hillary has continued to claim to this day that she really won in 2016, and probably would have continued more challenges than Trump ever dreamed of if her own party hadn't told her to, as Obama would say, "knock it off". There is evidence of election tampering that goes all the way back to Dewey vs. Truman, perhaps further, so to suspect tampering is nothing new under the sun. Mayor Daley tampering with the 1960 vote is another credible possibility, because it only took one state to throw the Electoral College, something like 9000 overnight votes. Look it up in an actual book, that can't be thrown down Orwell's Memory Hole, and can't be banned and removed by Zuckerberg and friends. Orwell's Telescreens ARE the Internet. The Daley reputation was "vote early and often", and the jokes wrote themselves. In 2016, until the night before, all the polling suggested that Trump couldn't win, but the polling was wrong. It's not illegal to lie to pollsters.

The January 6 Hollywood produced one sided "hearings", and all these claims that have come out much later, are not credible. Lawyers lie. It's what they do. It's what they are trained to do, from high school debates forward. It's the legal system.

But can you imagine some of the things Hillary was saying the night of the election and since? They should have hearings on that.

[Ben Zonia]

The real Leftist insurrection destruction persists. From your beloved Twitter.

https://twitter.com/ArtValley818_/statu ... ars.com%2F

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

The Dems need to focus on beating DeathSantis this year for governor. He is the real threat for 2024. Trump is already damaged goods.

[Lester The Nightfly]

Take a moment consider this. This is not the hair-on-fire, over-wrought, frantic hyperbole of Resistance Twitter.

The warning about “a revolution within a constitutional crisis,” didn’t come from Rachel Maddow, the guys who run Pod Save America, the NYT’s editorial page, or the usual prophets of Armageddon.

This was Michael Luttig, a conservative’s conservative; a former federal appeals court judge, who was on George Bush’s short-list for the Supreme Court.

You make an excellent point. Imagine if you're some life-long, card carrying Republican. You've probably attended more rubber chicken dinners than any human should have to. You've also probably written a ton of checks over the years supporting the party. You've worked your butt off doing everything in your power to try and find success for yourself and your party only to find yourself sitting in front of a Congressional investigation and so much as admitting your guy made an attempt to circumvent the edicts of the Constitution and the notion of a peaceful transfer of powers.

KInda explains why the good judge didn't seem too happy to be there...