Speaker 1: I want to go to something absolutely fascinating, you know, in all of this discussion
in the last month about Mike Pence could have Mike Pence should have Mike Pence had a duty
to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
And of course, he didn't have that ability, and he certainly didn't have the duty to do
it.
One of the things that is increasingly being mentioned as well, if Mike Pence could effectively
choose the winner of an election, then that means Kamala Harris could do the same thing
in 2024.
Kamala Harris could decide who wins, understanding that it's not just, she says, I award the
presidency to whoever by strategically choosing to reject the ballots from certain states
and send them back for an alternative slate of electors.
You guys understand it's a little bit more nuanced than just the vice president chooses
well.
Donald Trump, former Donald Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro appeared on MSNBC and
was interviewed by Ari Melber.
And this is really good because Ari Melber just says to him, Well, I mean, if Pence could
do it, then Kamala Harris could do it right.
And Peter Navarro twists himself into an incredible pretzel
Speaker 2: to put a final note on this section.
Yes, it would follow from your contention that you think Vice President Harris will
ultimately have the call over who should be president, regardless of the results in the
next election.
See you misconstrued the whole Green Bay sweep plan.
It's not for the vice president to determine who wins.
OK.
The only thing that Pence had the authority to do is go back to the states and let the
states look at the votes in the states in our Constitution who have the right to decide
who won an election.
But you're not asked, Speaker 1: but which states were? They that
he had the right to do that with and on what basis was he going to say, I'm sending this
back to the states because remember, all the legal challenges that were filed at the state
levels were found to be without merit Speaker 2: being the question.
And it seems like question when you put it on, Harris makes you, Peter, to ask for a
sign.
Yeah, it seems like it makes you.
But it seems like it's making you stretch when we just change the name from pence to
Harris, are you?
No, no, no.
Holding the contract?
Wait, let me finish the question you'll get used by Peter.
Let me finish the question authority to change you later.
Let me finish.
The question was not the premise of your argument.
All right.
So, Peter, let's take a second look.
Right, so let's say that under your contention, Vice President Harris could take any states
that her side lost and selectively send those back.
That's your current contention.
If, if any, any vice president under the Electoral Count Act of 1887 will get to that act, by
the way, if there are objections that are raised about a state's electors.
The provision is that you have two hours of that.
Speaker 1: Now the problem with this, if there are objections raised, they raised objections
without merit only in certain states.
So of course, if the shoe were on the other foot and Kamala Harris said, Well, you know
what?
We have objections that have been raised in Florida and Ohio, and I'm going to send them
back.
People like Peter Navarro would be out there saying, but those objections aren't legitimate.
And that's the issue because he says, well, if objections have been raised, the vice president
can say, we're sending it back.
And I don't know in Arizona, their plan was to just say, we're going to send you Republican
electors.
The question is who determines the legitimacy of those objections?
And none of the objections raised by these Trumpists in Arizona or Michigan or wherever
were found to have any merit?
Now I want to mention one other piece.
He says the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 was put in place
because nine years prior there was a disputed election and it took nine years and they put
together this act in 1887.
It puts the onus of solving disputes on the states.
It doesn't say that if there is a state dispute, the VP can say, we're sending Arizona back,
send us the Republican electors.
That was their plan.
The Electoral Count Act is very narrow, and these Trumpist don't care.
Now you go to the rallies and they repeated Electoral Count Act of 1887.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 says if there is a dispute like, for example, in Arizona.
The vice president could say we're going to send this back to resolve the dispute in the
state, but the disputes that the Trump people put together in places like Arizona were found
to be without merit.
You don't get to say, well, there is a dispute, so we're going to ignore the nine or, however,
seven electoral votes for Biden from Arizona and instead will accept seven electoral votes
for Trump.
That's not how it works, and the entire framing of what that Electoral Count Act did is being
completely bastardized by these people.
You probably know that.
So not surprising when confronted with, well, if Pence could get to pick doesn't commonly
get to pick his as well.
It depends on whether there were disputes, right?
But who decides if the dispute is legitimate?
Well, they do.
Apparently they do.
And Mike Pence was supposed to decide that we'll have this clip on her Instagram if you've
just been listening today.
Find us on Instagram at David Pakman Show