Just buffoonery, or something worse?

It's pure illiteracy. The ECA explicitly states that, if there are somehow conflicting EC votes, that ONLY those EC votes which are were approved by the state executive shall be counted. The Constitution explicitly states that the VP's role is to open the votes and that Congress is to count them. The only people making this "legal argument" are people who haven't read either the ECA or the Constitution. There are no exceptions. There's a reason I'm willing to quote both and they never quote either.

 

Yea, I'm aware of what it says, but I'm also aware that legal scholars disagree over the language of the ECA. It's why Congress recently placed reforms in it to remove the ambiguity it contained to prevent the issue ever being raised again.

Edited to add a link:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-bad-...s-bill-electoral-count-act-reform-11671575058

 

Biden Enterprises? It's a lemonade stand compared to Trump's sleazy empire.

 

Maybe, but when you have anonymous people paying $500,000 for a glass of lemonade, you've got to wonder if the lemonade is being spiked.

 

You added a link behind a paywall. Ugh.

 

Sorry. Would you like me to look for another or can you do a simple search yourself?

Eta:
Here, try this one

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bip...ing-electoral-count-act-now/story?id=82380232

 

I understand the sentiment but think one has to be more discriminating than "left" and "right" which can be elusive terms. You are basically correct, but if you look at what could be called governmental or constitutional conservative which might be right leaning and not really moderate there have been major national victories over the years -- notably Reagan in 80 and 84, the Tea party in 2010 and Trump in 2016 (against all odds). Trump might have repeated in 2020 if the Democrats had not been so successful in their diligent year long effort to get out the vote and make ballot stuffing much more easy, legally or wink-wink illegally (or quasi legally).

 

I don't trust any of these folks.

 

Neither do I, which is why the saying: "The lesser of two evils." often is a factor in how we vote.

 

Perhaps you'd like to make your accusation crystal clear. I ask because I have yet to see any credible accusations of anything other than Hunter using his name, in unethical ways, to be over compensated for lending said name to various projects.

The possible charges he faces for gun possession and tax violations are, IMO, a different matter entirely.

I have no problem acknowledging Hunter developed business relationships with foreign interests that brought him millions of dollars, raised questions about whether he was cashing in on his family name, set off alarms among government officials about potential conflicts of interest, and provided Repubs an opening for years of attacks on Joe. But I have seen no proof of illegal behavior or any credible proof Joe has any culpability.

 

Recall one of Eastman's main argument was that the ECA is unconstitutional and never been court tested.

 

So you're cool with a little bit of sleaze? What's your cut off point?

 

Tell that to all of the people on the forum who claim that this effort was justified under the ECA. You appear to be the only one who realizes that the plot would have violated the ECA, so kudos for you on that, but it's also a giant pile of **** to claim that the Constitution allowed for this. It clearly doesn't.

 

I'm not interested in searching even once to support your argument, even if I agree with it.

Your source is an opinion piece and almost certainly well hidden by Murdock sleaze bags.

 

Oh stop, I can hear Battle Hymn of The Republic.

 

Who is the "Big Guy" and what did he do for Hunter to collect 10% for him?

 

Well, your snarkiness makes me regret taking the time to find you another source. It won't happen again (if I can remember your post).

 

Eastman's plan has been thoroughly discredited as illegal, unconstitutional hackery, including by himself.

 

I'm asking for answers from you, not questions. Some of what Repubs have cast as evidence that could implicate Joe in questionable behavior by Hunter, assertions that they shared bank accounts, for example, or that Joe was a partner with his son in his aborted deal with the Chinese tycoon, is contradicted or undercut by a lack of actual evidence.

 

You're not the least bit curious about it? It's been alleged that Joe Biden is the "Big Guy" and that Hunter was to receive 10% of millions of dollars to hold for him. If that is true, you're not the least bit curious as to what Joe did to deserve all that money. Just tell me you're not curious and save me some time.

 

$0.

 

Thank you for confirming the lack of regard that Trump and his supporters have for our democratic elections. Your boy lost. I'm glad there are at least three criminal investigations into his attempts to steal the election.

 

I have read about it. It's just noise.

 

By all means, let's have more House and Senate hearings with self-righteous, grandstanding pols creating sound bites to propagandize their constituents.

 

So you close your ears.

https://giphy.com/gifs/gq-kim-kardashian-see-no-evil-hear-xT0GqKxkO0YPjbz0Jy