Piss weak Pence. The guy who had virtually decided to forgo his constitutional duty because he thought it would be too hurtful to his good friend Donald Trump. LOL Imagine being afraid of hurting the feelings of a psychopath. Seems, according to that account, Pence did not stand tall so much for the constitution as he did for what his son might think of him if he didn't do his duty. Looks his son pulled Pence back from the brink. If the account is true then Piss weak, Pence, is fair. Even Piss Weak Pence would be.
""Not feeling like I should attend electoral count," Pence wrote in his notes in late December. "Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I'm not going to participate in certification of election." P - Then, sitting across the table from his son, a Marine, while on vacation in Colorado, his son said to him, "Dad, you took the same oath I took" -- it was "an oath to support and defend the Constitution," Pence recalled to Smith's investigators, sources said. P - That's when Pence decided he would be at the Capitol on Jan. 6 after all, according to the sources."
That's new.
"Pence told Jan. 6 special counsel harrowing details about 2020 aftermath, warnings to Trump: Sources "
Flashback to 1800 -- When Alexander Hamilton Tried to Steal the Election of 1800
Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results isn’t the first effort to change the outcome of a close race. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson faced a similar and chaotic post-electoral problem.
November 19, 2020 • Editor-at-Large, Clay S. Jenkinson
[...]
The Two U.S. Constitutions
What this extraordinary story tells us is that we have two constitutions — the capital "C" Constitution drafted in 1787, ratified in 1788, and amended just 27 times in the course of American history. That Constitution is a brief document of just 4,543 words, which provides a general recipe for American governance but declines to specify exact procedures for many important American political institutions. Many provisions were left, as one historian puts it, in “studied ambiguity.”
Then there is the lowercase "c" constitution of the ways and means and norms that have emerged in the 232 years since ratification, including the cabinet, executive orders, executive privilege, senatorial courtesy, and much more. Those constitutional norms include the gracious concession of the loser in a presidential election, cooperation in the transition from one administration to another, faithful electors, mutual acceptance that “the people have spoken,” the loser’s appearance at his rival’s inauguration, and a high degree of self-restraint by former presidents in not opinionating on the leadership of their successors.
Theodore Roosevelt actually left the country on a yearlong safari in 1909 to give his hapless successor William Howard Taft the chance to establish his own regimen and presidential style, without everyone looking over Taft’s shoulder to see how the former president — infinitely more energetic and charismatic — reacted to his every utterance and every decision.
In the election of 1800, Hamilton, who saw his life’s work slipping away with the coming of the “democrats” into power, assaulted the barely rooted norms of American political tradition. He attempted to void the results of the election by what even he regarded as unscrupulous means. His nasty pamphlet about his own party’s nominee for the presidency broke later President Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” In doing so, Hamilton split the Federalist Party and weakened its chances of holding onto the presidency. By 1805, after Jefferson won a second term by a landslide, the Federalist Party essentially blinked out of existence, in part because of Hamilton’s misguided actions in the election of 1800.
Trump’s trial nightmare: Jack Smith on offense with Pence testimony
"Pence told Jan. 6 special counsel harrowing details about 2020 aftermath, warnings to Trump: Sources"
MSNBC
Nov 29, 2023
According to ABC News, Mike Pence testified that he “clearly and repeatedly” emphasized to Trump that rejecting certain votes on Jan. 6 would violate the constitution. MSNBC’s Ari Melber reports on how Pence’s testimony may strengthen the DOJ’s case against Trump. Former Prosecutor Kristy Greenberg and The Guardian's Hugo Lowell join. (Check out The Beat's playlist
"Pence told Jan. 6 special counsel harrowing details about 2020 aftermath, warnings to Trump: Sources [...]According to sources, one of Pence's notes obtained by Smith's team shows that, days before Pence was set to preside over Congress certifying the election results on Jan. 6, 2021, he momentarily decided that he would skip the proceedings altogether, writing in the note that there were "too many questions" and it would otherwise be "too hurtful to my friend." But he ultimately concluded he had a duty to show up. P - Speaking with Smith's team, Pence insisted his loyalty to President Trump at the time never faltered -- "My only higher loyalty was to God and the Constitution," sources described Pence as telling them. P - Sources said that investigators' questioning became so granular at times that they pressed Pence over the placement of a comma in his book: When recounting a phone call with Trump on Christmas Day 2020, Pence wrote in his book that he told Trump, "You know, I don't think I have the authority to change the outcome" of the election on Jan. 6. But Pence allegedly told Smith's investigators that the comma should have never been placed there. According to sources, Pence told Smith's investigators that he actually meant to write in his book that he admonished Trump, "You know I don't think I have the authority to change the outcome," suggesting Trump was well aware of the limitations of Pence's authority days before Jan. 6 -- a line Smith includes in his indictment. [...]When Trump privately asked Pence what they should do, Pence said he told the then-president that if nothing changed, "[you] should simply accept the results," "you should take a bow," travel the country to thank supporters, "and then run again if you want." P - "And I'll never forget, he pointed at me ... as if to say, 'That's worth thinking about.' And he walked [away]," Pence recalled to investigators, sources said. P - However, two days later -- as noted in Smith's election interference-related indictment against Trump -- Trump "re-tweeted a memo titled 'Operation PENCE CARD,' which falsely asserted that the Vice President could, among other things, unilaterally disqualify legitimate electors from six targeted states." P - When Pence, on his way to Colorado for Christmas vacation, saw Trump's post, he turned to his wife and said, "Here we go," he recalled to Smith's investigators, sources said. [...]But, the sources said, with the pressure on Pence mounting, he concluded on Christmas Eve -- just for a moment -- that he would follow Trump's suggestion and let someone else preside over the proceedings on Jan. 6, writing in his notes that doing otherwise would be "too hurtful to my friend." P - "Not feeling like I should attend electoral count," Pence wrote in his notes in late December. "Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I'm not going to participate in certification of election." P - Then, sitting across the table from his son, a Marine, while on vacation in Colorado, his son said to him, "Dad, you took the same oath I took" -- it was "an oath to support and defend the Constitution," Pence recalled to Smith's investigators, sources said. P - That's when Pence decided he would be at the Capitol on Jan. 6 after all, according to the sources."
That's when Pence decided he owed more to the constitution than he did to his friend Donald Trump. Thanks to Pence's son, Pence did the right thing.
Why has Brazil united in rejecting last year’s insurrection, while the United States remains deeply divided over Jan. 6?
On Jan. 8 of last year, a mob ransacked Brazil’s Congress and other offices, claiming an election had been stolen. Unlike the Jan. 6 rioters in Washington, the Brazilian protesters have almost no support now. Eraldo Peres/Associated Press, Jason Andrew for The New York Times
By Jack Nicas Jack Nicas has covered false claims of election fraud in both the United States and Brazil. He reported from Rio de Janeiro.
Monday marks one year since thousands of right-wing protesters draped in the colors of the Brazilian flag stormed into .. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/13/world/americas/brazil-protests-mob.html .. Brazil’s Congress, Supreme Court and presidential offices with a violent fury and the goal of overturning an election.
Saturday marked three years since thousands of Americans did just about the same thing.
They were two shocking attacks on the Western Hemisphere’s two largest democracies, both broadcast around the world and both prompted by presidents who had questioned their legitimate election losses. Each posed an extraordinary test of the country’s democracy, and each raised the question of how a deeply polarized society would move forward in the wake of such an assault.
With time, the answer to that question is becoming clear: The parallel attacks have had nearly opposite aftermaths.
In the United States, support is soaring for Donald J. Trump’s campaign to retake the White House, as he frames his 2020 election loss as the real insurrection and Jan. 6 as “a beautiful day.”
At the same time, his counterpart in Brazil, the far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, has quickly faded into political irrelevance. Six months after he left office last year, electoral officials barred him from running again .. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/world/americas/trump-bolsonaro-brazil-us.html .. until 2030, and many right-wing leaders have shunned him.
So whyhave there been such contrasting reactions to such similar threats? Researchers and analysts point to a multitude of reasons, including the countries’ differing political systems, media landscapes, national histories and judicial responses, but one difference especially stands out.
Leaderson Brazil’s right “publicly, clearly, unambiguously accepted the results of the election and did exactly what democratic politicians are supposed to do,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard professor of government and co-author of the book “How Democracies Die,” who studies both the American and Brazilian democracies. “That is strikingly different from how Republicans responded.”
Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, at the presidential offices after the riot. Eraldo Peres/Associated Press
Ciro Nogueira, a right-wing politician who was Mr. Bolsonaro’s outgoing chief of staff and is now Brazil’s Senate minority leader, said the reaction in the United States surprised him.
“There is a consensus in our country, among the political class, to condemn these acts,” he said. “I think it’s really unfortunate that a portion of American politicians applaud this type of protest.”
He speculated that Brazil strongly rebuked the rioters because many Brazilians are old enough to remember the violent military dictatorship that ruled the country from 1964 to 1985. “The United States hasn’t lived through a dictatorship, a period of authoritarianism,” he said. “We never want that to return in our country.”
Analysts also pointed out that Brazil’s political fragmentation — 20 different parties are represented in Congress — makes politicians more willing to confront one another and express a wider range of views, while American conservatives are largely confined to the Republican Party.
At the same time, they noted that mainstream media is less fragmented in Brazil, which they say has helped a wider share of the public agree on a common set of facts. One generally centrist news network, Globo, has a commanding share of viewers, with ratings often surpassing those of the next four networks combined.
But there is another reason Brazil has so resolutely rejected the Jan. 8 riot — a factor that some fear could pose its own unintended threat to the nation’s institutions. Brazil’s Supreme Court has expanded its power .. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world/americas/bolsonaro-brazil-supreme-court.html .. to investigate and prosecute people it sees as threats to democracy.
Alexandre de Moraes, a Brazilian Supreme Court justice, has defended the court’s strong reaction to the riot, which included requiring tech companies to delete posts that spread disinformation. Dado Galdieri for The New York Times
As a result, Brazilian courts have recently ordered tech companies to take down accounts at one of the highest rates in the world, according to disclosures by Google and Meta, which owns Instagram.
Mr. Moraes has also overseen the investigation into Jan. 8. (In some cases in Brazil, the role of Supreme Court justices can resemble that of both prosecutors and judges.)
One year after the Brazil riot, 1,350 people have been charged and 30 people have been convicted, with sentences ranging from 3 to 17 years. After three years, about 1,240 rioters from Jan. 6 have been charged and 880 convicted or plead guilty .. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/04/us/january-6-capitol-trump-investigation.html . Sentences have ranged from a few days to 22 years.
“If it hadn’t been for the strong reaction from the institutions, we wouldn’t be talking here today. The Supreme Court would be closed and I, as the investigations have shown, would not be here,” he said in one interview .. https://veja.abril.com.br/brasil/alexandre-de-moraes-a-veja-nao-foi-baderna-foi-golpe/ , noting that some rioters had wanted to kill him.
Thirty conservative senators in Brazil released a letter on Friday that condemned the Jan. 8 attacks but questioned the Supreme Court’s growing power. Legal experts across Brazil have debated whether the court’s moves are justified given the threat — or whether they constitute their own new problem.
“I think there are problems with the Supreme Court’s actions,” said Emilio Peluso, a constitutional law professor at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil. “But I think the Supreme Court had to give a firm response to what happened on Jan. 8.”
[Insert: Brazil's top court banned Bolsonaro from politics until 2030 for abusing his position by spreading misinformation about electronic voting machines. Imagine spreading misinformation without evidence. The nerve! Bolsonaro was barred for much less abuse of his position than Trump was guilty of. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172251907]
Mr. Levitsky, the Harvard professor, said Brazil’s approach resembles the “militant democracy” doctrine developed in Germany after World War II to combat fascism, in which the government can ban politicians deemed a threat.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
