The Democrat party stood on the steps of the Capitol, and held a memorial service for the "5 Capitol police killed by insurrectionists" on January 6th. The service started with Hakeem Jeffreys speech in their memory. They all knew that was a lie, but did it anyway, in front of the journalists and cameras. It's still on YT, if anyone wants to watch it. Does nobody else find that really, really worrying?
The only insurrection to murder a man who's death was found to have been of natural causes with no sign of internal or external injury. Funny how they know who did it, but didn't charge them with any sort of homicide...
That UA-cam felt the need to censor the other two responses to your comment tells you all you need to know. People are concerned but have that view suppressed to give the impression that's not the case.
@@Athetos_Admech the replies are there, but you have to go to 'newest' and work back to see them 🤷♂️. But I'm not getting notifications of replies, or even likes!
Unfortunately, the boys didn't understand the argument. It's not their fault, they are not attorneys. He was not making a free speech argument under the 1st Amendment. He was making a right to petition the government argument under the 1st Amendment. This is a constitutional right because a government that can deny you the right to petition the government concerning grievances can make any right that you have worthless. His point was there was no method to contest what they believed to be a fraudulent election result except to send their own electors.
I’m not aware of that petition phrase in 1A being a distinct right under the first amendment, I’ve never seen any authority for that, nor does that justify forging electoral college forms given that fraud is one of the main exceptions to the first amendment protections. This proposition isn’t even true about having no venue to contest the election. The court are venue, trump just lost in the proper venue so tried to circumvent them.
This is in part why the whole process of levying an objection exists - and it's not like you can show up to that event, say "I object," not present an alternative, and be taken seriously.
I love that streams like these are a choose-your-own-adventure type of affair. You could choose lawful good and listen to Sitch and Rekieta having an interesting discussion on the left or focus on Adam and chat being chaotic neutral on the right of the screen.
As my favorite internet lawyer Attorney Tom has said many times “It depends.” Which is why it’s so stupid that people just argue trump is guilty full stop. As it turns out we have lawyers because the law has to be interpreted constantly and lawyers job is to argue for their interpretation of it
I would say, on it's face, trying to swap electors is probably illegal. The thing is, I don't know if the charge would be fraud or conspiracy of some sort, or maybe something to do with obstructing the certification process. I would also say that both sides would probably abandon their current arguments if a Dem were being accused. I think Dems would suddenly be more open-minded and Reps would be demanding that Treason charges be brought. Unfortunately, that is our starting point. However, it's hard to say how the law will be interpreted, depending on who is making the ruling. I think motive is a factor that can carry a lot of weight but sometimes, good intentions aren't enough to absolve someone of a crime. Like, the guy who stormed Comet Pizza looking to free child sex slaves. I think even the most biased observer would agree that it is okay to take extreme action in order to rescue children. But, clearly the courts felt that the gunman had insufficient evidence to justify his actions. On the one hand, I think it's kinda sad that a seemingly decent man, who is a husband and father, would face such harsh consequences, while trying to do a good thing. On the other hand, I think it is dangerous to allow gullible people the right to carry out vigilante justice. The man clearly believed that he was going to be saving kids, but it would be an extremely slippery slope to grant leniency to well-meaning vigilantes. It all comes down to circumstance. The courts were unmoved by the Comet Pizza guy, but the father who tried to attack Larry Nassir (Gymnastics groper) in the court room was treated with great sympathy. The judge spoke a few harsh words at the father, then ordered him to be released and no charges were brought against him. In the 1st example, I believe that man provided a weak explanation for his actions, whereas the 2nd example involved a father reacting in a way that almost anyone could understand. At the end of the day, it's gonna come down to whether or not the courts believe there was a compelling reason for the actions in question to be taken.
How can a law be interpreted differently? The law was made with an intention. Shouldn’t it be interpreted by the way the person/person’s intended the law to mean?
The problem with these electors is simply this: we can only really go on past precedent and authority/power given to entities such as state legislatures. This is why for example when Trump won in 2016 many people who opposed Trump kept saying “well the electoral college doesn’t necessarily necessitate the electors vote for Trump” and technically they were right but as Rekita pointed out they would have to put a good faith reason forward to enact this. It never happened before at such a scale but this is where the Russian hacking really came from and gained so much prominence if anyone remembers the timeline. A number of house democrats at the time pout forward the idea that since Russia had been “accused” (at the time of the vote) of hacking voting machines it could bring into question whether or not Donald Trump was the true winner of these states. (Of course they did this this to conflate the idea that Trump knew and wanted Russia to help him win but the legal argument would have probably ignored this) If this scenario played out though the election doesn’t just stop. It would go through the courts and the election would essentially just play out over a longer timeline until these answers came forward. This is why I don’t think Trump will be convicted on conspiracy to commit fraud because we have to presume unless proven otherwise Trump and his administration was putting a good faith challenge up through legal means and open legal questions. However that does not mean that Trump is off Scot free. I think it is completely fair to say that these actions are immoral and or highly suspect for a politician to engage in. But of course given the reaction and how democrats want Trump off the ballot basically puts into question their previous statements about protecting democracy and I think completely undermines their legal/political arguments. Especially considering democrats were putting forward similar legal theory in 2016 They are engaging in a similar open legal question that really doesn’t have much merit in the hopes of swaying the results. This is further muddied by just the general political climate and why democrats need January 6th to be important. They want to make the connection that Trump was willing to essentially use his supporters to obstruct the vote to pull a quickie under everyone’s nose. In reality we need to see it for what it is: an open question that needs to be answered by courts or laws created and hopefully move on and disincentivize this from happening again. And a bipartisan federal bill did do this on the federal level. To my last point: I really do think if Trump wins the election and it’s looking like he has a fair chance I don’t think democrats will simply bend over and allow him to get in. I do think we will see a huge bout of hypocrisy from both sides and that is why it is important for people in the middle and the objective court systems to exist. And I do think this is why Trump supporters were more willing to accept Trumps denial of the election. While the democrats did not do it one the same scale they certainly Popularized questioning election results in 2000 and 2016 and the mainstream media seemed to be very friendly to it. Particularly in 2016 when TDS people used a buzzfeed article with highly suspect information as the basis for years of investigation and political hackery to suggest Trump was a traitor and or puppet that fraudulently elected and it really only fell out of favor when the Ukraine impeachment took the spot light. Also do not forget what they did to Kavenagh who was merely appointed by Trump. Democrats were more than willing to destroy a man’s reputation over an accusation with literally no merit.
Very well said. I think Biden would jump in the poles if he condemned the actions by the Colorado SC. I also think if the DOJ dropped all of the legal charges against Trump it would further push people in the middle toward Biden. I think all of this just goes to the tribal nature of today's politics and the need to for one party to retain power at all costs.
Ome thing you're missing is Trump had legitimate gripes about the 2020 election, the democrats didn't for 2016. And our legal system isn't objective. It's filled with people who love power and hate Trump and will do whatever it takes to not have him as president. Why disincentivize it from happening again? Just let what happened in 2020 keep happening? If you really are objective and actually look at what happened, there's no way you say everything was on the up and up that night. Pennsylvania ignored their own constitution and then just said we're allowed to do it. Bc Republicans are cowards, they did nothing about it and let it happen. How are they allowed to go against their own constitution and then just say well we're allowed to do so, so there's no foul here. That's just 1 state too. There were multiple others with a ton of bs that happened. The only way to get past that would have been to actually investigate it and not just say it was the freest and fairest election in the history of forever. Democrats don't care about democracy, which is stupid bc we're not a democracy anyway, we're a constitutional republic, and they don't care about the rule of law. They will do and say whatever they have to in order to win and maintain their power. Why you think our border is wide open? Millions of new voters for them pouring in every year.
I'm really really glad this went well. Nick can be a tough guy to talk to. He claims he oppositional defiant disorder, which I was skeptical at first, but I think it's pretty reasonable to take him on his word with that. He really _really_ likes to push things to the brink with "well why not" or "well hold on now" to any and all ad absurdum argument made for the sake of moving the conversation forward. I've got the benefit of far too many hours listening to his mad ramblings to know how to filter it. But at the end of the day he's got a lot of excellent insight - it sometimes just takes many hours for him to get it out in a way that's digestible for people, by which time he's usually had enough whiskey that he just starts trolling. Personally, I had no trouble understanding the point he was trying to make to Destiny, though I readily accept the fundamental difference between understanding as an audience and understanding as a participant; and that I have had some exposure to adjacent topics to help contextualize it and a general understanding of the complexity and nuance of law, especially when it's a novel issue, and doubly so when it hits the really high levels of the judicial system and questions of the Constitution. The problem he had with Destiny _could_ have been overcome if he realized he needed to start back at the beginning every time he developed an idea, because Destiny likely did not retain it in a way that made it readily available to provide him with that context. If you wanna get some further insight on this specific topic, Donald Trump himself was a guest on the Good Logic channel with a good supplemental and superior legal communications. (inside joke from the stream) It was refreshing to hear when the points would click with Sitch. BTW if you ever wanna get into the weeds about SCOTUS, Uncivil Law is your guy. I imagine he'd be more than happy to come on any time.
@@amandzzz I can assure you that not even he would claim he is a good lawyer - in fact, he has stated exactly that. I can also assure you that, based on the half a dozen lawyers that I watch, he deviates from them far more than they deviate from each other. His "training" includes law school, and a very small amount of practicing, with virtually no court experience. It was not a career for him, just a paycheck, and that's why he jumped to UA-cam once it became financially suitable. There was a time when he was the second highest superchat earner on UA-cam. He is a hardline libertarian, defiant, fond of presenting difficult edge cases specifically to explore the fringes of law, rather than the law everyone is comfortable with - because there are many unanswered questions, including on issues with that have a long history of being interpreted in a certain way - and he spends more time chilling and having fun than talking about legal stuff. Your objection to him using legal arguments is pretty baffling, since they were discussing _checks notes_ the law. People like Nick for his personality, not his legal expertise. I don't know what lawyer hurt you, but there's no need to take it out on others.
@@GangsterFrankensteinComputer It's really funny to me when he hits the point where his brain becomes incapable of forming coherent thoughts but people don't notice - that's when you get the "why not though" "why shouldn't it be" "well hold on, though" and they start to seethe lol. It's not good content, but there is humor when you know what's going on and how futile the other persons' point are
Nick is just, well versed on legal stuff, even his alcohol reduced brain can easily make arguments on it Its when you question his non practicing lawyer status he gets mad
One thing that you guys messed up on. This is the fact that you keep on thinking that pens has the ability to pick one slate of electors over another 1. But that's not true. He has the ability to send it to the house to have them vote on it. 4 to say Hey, there's a vision evidence here. Let's send it back to the state to be looked over
Sitch saying that he disagrees with his arguments is interesting and maybe even a little disingenuous. He spoke on the law. Really, there are only two things that can be said in disagreement: 1. I don't agree with the law, and it needs changing. 2. I don't agree with your interpretation of the law.
Online debaters have a very difficult time with this concept. That's why attorneys having debates with online debaters is sometimes pointless. However this interaction was more of a conversation than a debate.
I agree. Sitch was in full you tube debate mode. The nuance of what power the VP has really makes this more of a legal interpretation question. Honestly until that question is answered not sure any of the Federal cases hold water. Even if the US SC says yep the VP just has a customary action even then I don't know if any of the cases hold up because there was no law or SC decision at the time of the acts?? I wonder how that works??
@MrRjsnowden that's a far more interesting topic. Would love to see that debate. Instead, most youtube debates break down to, "It should be this way because that makes me feel comfortable. Anything that makes me feel uncomfortable is wrong, and I don't agree." Lol
Nick's point is that there's no obvious answer as to what would constitute fraud in this case. It's an open legal question. And he's presenting considerations. Or have I missed something?
@@tipzdaturtle I said reductionist because this isn't really a matter of fraud as far as Nick is concerned. It's a matter of what authorities the Constitution implies the Speaker of the House has. Destiny is trying to make it about fraud. As far as I can tell, Nick is saying that, historically, this element of the Constitution hasn't been challenged and, if handled properly, it would be up to the SCOTUS to issue a ruling. In short, Nick is saying that there is a wrinkle in the Constitution for the SCOTUS to iron out, whereas Destiny (and both Sitch & Adam for that matter) is insisting that it's cut and dry. On a separate note, I find Destiny's point funny because even "cut and dry" things like the First and Second Amendments have received plenty of rulings from the SCOTUS. Assuming that anything in the Constitution is obvious is silly. The framers recognized that virtually every is open to being challenged, hence why Article 3 exists in the first place.
An hour in listening to Sitch refuse to try and grasp a concept...one that he is fully capable of grasping. We know you hate the orange man, but damn dude.
Nick- “fraud requires that people be fooled…” Sitch- “You’re not FOOLING anyone!” Me- * facepalm * I dunno. I’ve spent years listening to these people bitch and moan and whine and I still don’t really hear an argument. As usual their entire perspective hinges on the idea that Trump is simply the most self-interested, amoral cartoon gangster ever to walk the earth, entirely incapable of acting out of anything but the worst of all possible intentions, always. And that therefore, they are entitled to dispense with any and all benefit of the doubt, just because they say so. What, you got some kind of problem with that, fascist? Anyway, Sitch seems determined to flush all his likability down the f’ng toilet on this one and take the show with it.
@@wordshurt2676 Oh you mean the reality of just reading the indictments and using J6 committee testimony as support for said reality. Come on man. You don't need to claim someone is a Trump simp just because you don't like what they say??
@@wordshurt2676The funny part is you worship him more then anyone. TDS is a cult after all. even after all this he will live rent free in your head. dont deny it
@@johnbuckner2828 cause destiny didn't understand his point that the liecan't cause harm because the process doesn't rely on the lie of the alternate electors. The state has the authority to claim them against the interest of the people. So there can't be harm as the state can go against the voters...its absolutely fucked up...but they can. So there's no fraud cause there's no harm either way and the process is constitutional
Ah Sitch grasping for a win. The whole question is really simply did the Vice President even have the power to do what Eastman thought the office could do.
You say that as if it's heartily contested. Pretty much everyone agrees that the answer is no. Even those that don't agree, still accept the answer is probably not. Even Eastmen himself accepts that the answer is probably not
@@HopelessDjinn Does everyone though?? The problem is unless its in law as a hard no then Trump was following the process no matter how much we all hate the process. I think it really needs to be cleaned up in clear language. Its a dangerous ambiguity.
@@MrRjsnowden That's not how law works. Not everything is permitted unless a law specifies it isn't, that's ridiculous. There's no law that says a 5 year old can't decide who the next president is based on who buys them the best toy for christmas, yet why would we ever assume that's a possibility?
@@Google_Censored_Commenter Actually that is how the law works. If there is no law against something, it is legal. As for your hypothetical example, there are multiple laws which say a 5 year old can't decide who the next president is.
The jump the shark for me in that debate between Destiny and Rekeita was when Destiny said Trump was lying a priori and that his reason for believing that was simply that's what he wanted to believe.
I think along that line of thought that Destiny simply did not presume innocence in this case, but the problem for him is that it is a literal requirement of our system. Unless there is proof Trump did not believe there was any fraud we have to presume innocence, that he did in fact believe there was fraud. Nick called him out on this at the end, telling him to prove that Trump doesn't believe his own claims. Destiny seemingly can't fathom that Trump could have a good faith belief is his claims, but that is his own bias. Legally you have to presume he does unless shown otherwise.
I fully believe that a narcissist like Trump fully believed the election not going his way meant there was fraud, especially after the low turn outs to the few Biden rallies there were and how Biden mostly did not campaign and what he did was very weak and ordinarily suicidal for a politician to say. But then I talked to my mother about the Fetterman v. Dr. Oz "debate" and she was fully on Fetterman's team because of the "D" next to his name and clarity on abortion stance.
@deaj8450 personally I believe trump doesn't really believe in his claims. He may be lying to himself but deep down he knows he lost. The problem is that I can't prove that. There is a difference between me being convinced of something and me being able to prove it in a court of law.
Sitch one of the things you gotta understand in law is all head cannon. Its someones headcannon that someone commits murder. They think they have facts in evidence that someone committed murder. Theres nothing which is sure untill the innocent or guilty sentence.
I think Nick stated, pretty clearly, that his biggest concern is the underlying retaliatory nature of what the government is doing in prosecuting January Six and Trump. To me, that's the end of the discussion. This is a massive violation of the social contract between giant swaths of people who vehemently disagree with each other. I think the way people approach this concern, especially when they don't like Trump, is horribly blind to that fact. If all you care about is whether or not a crime was committed, good for you. It's still stupid to ignore the other calculus in the question. Let's say this prosecution goes through. Trump and his team are all convicted to 7 trillion years in prison, or whatever it is. Then Trump goes to prison. Great, now what? The left of center/centrists who dislike Trump can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Justice was served! Some of it might have been more than a little bit politically retributive, but who cares about that. We got the bad guy! Then there's the, what, 40 million voters on the other side of that. Now they think the government is so stacked against them that their entire political view is now just a hair away from being criminalized. And you think that's going to go well for our nation? Let me put it this way. Imagine if Trump had actually thrown Hillary in prison after the 2016 election. Bill Barr talked about that with Trump. And Trump said to drop it because it was all rhetoric. But imagine if it wasn't. The left of center who voted for Clinton who didn't think there was anything substantively wrong with what she did would now be in the exact same position as the hypothetical above that we are way too close to comfort for. I think this is way past bad. It's way past dangerous. The people prosecuting Trump and J6 people are playing with some really hot fire. And rather than try and cool things down, they constantly throw gas on it. And the only response people have when there's protest about that is: "wElL TrUmP isN'T aBoVe ThE LaW!!!" Great. Keep stoking the fire and see how well it goes. Maybe nothing will happen and people will get over it. I really hope people get over it. But I'm not confident that the right is going to be level headed enough to just let these prosecutions happen without some really, REALLY serious downstream affects. Whether that's retaliation in the future, or worse. I wish you all would treat that problem more seriously. Because Destiny's "Well can Trump just murder someone" whataboutism just ignores the actual issue being raised about political retaliation.
You’re worried if the right will be level-headed enough? Which side set entire cities on fire for 6 months in 2020? You say you want to cool the temperature and then go on to blame only one side for the potential downstream effects of what’s happening because The Right (tm) is super unhinged and you’re afraid they won’t be able to keep their sht together. Pretty words, but you’re just like the rest.
Sitch lost me awhile when he said Trump shouldn't do to the left what they're doing to him and that's why he doesn't want him to win. Oh so political persecution is okay when it's the left eh?
Nope. destiny explicitly left legal recourse out of the discussion that you clearly didn't watch. His point was about whether deliberately lying that the alternate electors, regardless of whether voter fraud claims were real, was fraud. All Nick does is say it's not fraud because no one would fall for it, then insults Destiny in his classic arrogant fashion.
@@CodySvsTheNet "Bad thing is bad no matter who does it" "SO THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT?!?!" You have the reasoning of a child. Please read a book or something
@@__keys I'm sure it's super fun that you can concoct fun little fantasies like "you didn't watch." But I did. Both Destiny and Rekieta's discussion and this entire video. And the video they did after this with GoodLawgic. I understand that the presuppositions can be stripped out of any debate. But it's still something both sides of any discussion should be cognizant of. Because, if you aren't, then your arguments start getting into ridiculous hypotheticals like "the president murdering members of Congress trying to impeach him." If Destiny wanted to take his discussion to the absurd based on the presupposition he was operating with, that presidents are not above the law. Then it has to go both ways, and Nick's presuppositions should also have been properly explored. That retribution should factor into the calculation. Because that's actually real life.
Every proposed order is written as an affirmative. Any attorney would know this. The fact that Rekeita completely fumbles this opportunity to educate Sitch on this when it's Sitch's primary argument and misunderstanding is beyond frustrating.
The law to one degree or another relays on legal positivism. There are situations particularly in property law where the courts will construct some right or entitlement even though it may not be necessarily True, or entirely logically justified. A lot of law is not intuitive because of this; however, constitutional law in particular always has some rational or reasons to justify the constructed interpretations some are more intuitive than others, i.e. I have a problem intuitively using the modern interpretation of the commerce clause.
If the VPOTUS has the authority to rule on the validity of the electors, rather than his role being ceremonial, and a person could come to the conclusion that the state is in dispute, and VPOTUS is a person, does that not then mean that VPOTUS could do what Trump demanded? Personally, I don't think VPOTUS has legislative powers which are not explicitly named and granted, as VPOTUS is still an officer of the executive with limited legislative powers added on, and therefore this role should be ceremonial. But if we interpret this role as being one of arbiter, it stands to reason that this means VPOTUS has the ability to discard undesired electors as long as VPOTUS expresses the sincere belief that they are invalid for xyz reason. I do think allowing any officer of the executive to rule on who the next executive should be can never be allowed, even if that IS what the law says. The law should change if that is what we interpret it to mean.
"I don't think this is a legitimate avenue to challenge an election." -Adam I completely agree on political grounds that it's a giant turd. However, it's also not seemingly illegal. It's testing novel legal grounds, which politicians have been historically unwilling to cross because it's a giant political minefield and likely to result in bad outcomes. But not everything that's a bad idea, even a horrible idea, is necessarily a crime. I think it would have been a wise political move for Biden to issue a pardon to Trump, preventing any appearance of weaponizing the law against his opponent, while attacking Trump for pushing boundaries that aren't appropriate resolutions to political disputes. Of course, I could be wrong about the optics of that strategy. The perception, at least among many conservatives and MAGA people, is that the GOP has too long tried to abide to political norms of civility, and Trump is popular because he does not hold back. He's not about getting along with the left, he attacks and fights. Maybe trying to stay above the fight would blow up in Democrats' faces, but I think it would have been a clever way to defuse Trump by depriving him of being able to play the victim.
This is a stupid claim and I’m going to tell you why. First off, you’re not going to get that conviction wear a pardon will happen. Truck was literally acquitted in the Senate of the charges of insurrection. Everything you are currently thing now our civil cases, and that’s for a reason. No lawyer or court reasonably thinks they can get Trump on the criminal definition of insurrection. Because they just simply can’t. There are no documents that show Truck was literally trying to overthrow the country. Next, because of the trump derangement syndrome that has progressed through the country, A pardon is not an option. It would not only make the Democrats look weak, it would make their cries about insurrection fall on deaf ears. Insurrection was such a issue that they cried about it for years, but at the same time we are supposed to believe it is an easily forgivable offense? You can’t have both. Lastly you said something about depriving Trump of looking like the victim, well it’s too bad that’s the case. Because without a doubt Biden is persecuting Trump. And more and more people are starting to believe that the 2020 election was indeed a stolen election.
Anything can be a legal theory, this doesn't mean the plan is necessarily legal or free from prosecution. I can interpret a law any way I want, (legal theory) this doesnt mean anything at all.
Actually what he says does mean something. When there is ambiguity in the law the benefit of the doubt must be given to the individual making the novel challenge over the government. This is why laws can be voided for vagueness. It builds upon the core principle of innocent until proven guilty. The government must show that the law on a subject is clear enough for a reasonable person to understand what they are, and aren’t, allowed to do. In the case of challenging election results, the most prominent bit of case precedence prior to 2020 is the Bush v Gore and the Kennedy v Nixon cases. Many of the legal tactics used by Trump lawyers, and those aligned were come up with using precedence for those cases. Considering no one who brought challenges, or alternate slates of electors, in those elections was ever prosecuted, it is reasonable to believe that challenging in that way is legal. Now if we determine as a nation we don’t like that then we can change the law, but what we can’t do is then charge the person that presented those theories in the case of 2020 being that the lawyers were relying on case precedence to bring the challenges.
Interesting revisiting this after the recent, incident with Rekita law. Honestly its interesting as i would not have taken away from the Destiny convo what he claims his argument was. Even after a 2nd watch this seems like post modern legalese to justify a dubious claim. I mean seriously do you think he would be bending like this to claim any certificate is what the text is referring too, if Democrats randomly declared we have to use they're 2nd surprise slate of electors. I would hammered the absurd claim of a president telepathically declassifying a document. The actual problem in the Destiny conversation was Rekita kept coming back to you cant hold somebody responsible for an attempted crime. He kept coming back to it wasn't purgy to impersonate the electors, lie under oath, or even conspiracy to commit the act despite that all being plain as day. Also Destiny didn't say they were illegitimate he said the cases & investigations didn't turn up anything. Thats different. RL wants to pretend it was dismissed out of hand but thats not true. Honestly it just seems like hes desperate to not have an actual position on any of the facts. Also while im not a lawyer but i know there has been cases of people challenging & proving voter fraud, the infamous cemetery votes from the 60s I believe. I dont see why you couldn't just use that standard to challenge it. Sure it would have to be scaled up but the legal reasoning should be the same.
There were a lot of hypotheticals, and I felt like a few more could have been brought up. There was the case of the fraudulent check and conspiring with a teller at the bank. But imagine this alternative hypothetical. You want the bank to give you $5,000. The bank is completely aware of you, and knows your story. Perhaps you've come into some recent hardship that the bank is aware of and you need $5,000 to pay for medical bills or whatever. The bank, as an entity, the chief officers and the full board have decided they want you to have $5,000. If you then walk in with a forged check asking for $5,000, and they just give it to you, the money that they've decided they want you to have, is that a fraud? Here's another hypothetical, one that would have been well posed to Nick. Imagine Trump overwhelmingly won Pennsylvania. He got 80% of the vote, biggest margin in Pennsylvania probably since George Washington, and everyone was aware of that. Then, the Pennsylvania legislature holds a special sessions and says, "Screw that, all of our Electors are going to Biden, we don't care." And they send in a slate of Biden Electors and everyone knows this. They have the plenary authority to just do this, ignoring their own processes. If Pence then rejects the Biden Electors, is he usurping the state's power to choose their electors by any process? Also, in the above hypothetical, Pennsylvania is discriminating against a certain class. They've established laws for their own elections that the public in that state is relying upon, which says that they have the right to determine which candidate for President the state's electors are voting for. Since they're depriving this particular class of voters of their right to choose their president, it seems like there's grounds for a Civil Rights suit to be filed against the State Legislature. Now, you can make arguments that voting for presidential candidates is not a "right" because it's not the constitutional process, however, since states have codified a process into law that citizens are meant to rely upon, that right can't be deprived absent due process. So can this class of Trump voters sue, on the grounds that they are a specific class that the state is discriminating against?
In your first question, the issue is the intent, so the action of knowingly giving a forged check is still fraud regardless of the actions of the other side, even if it's functionally unenforceable. In your second question, if anything, Trump winning 80% of the vote would be an _incredibly_ strong sign of malfeasance by Trump and saying screw the count, send alternate electors would probably be justified. But if we follow your hypothetical, this would be a sign of a breakdown in federalization, Pennsylvania would be considered a rogue state, ejected from the union and would be invaded in a new civil war. If this changed the election result, the correct maneuver would be for congress to impeach the president.
It depends on what happens in the election. If Biden believes there is widespread voter fraud and there is reasonable objection Kamal could force the states to validate electors, or if the states certify mixed electors then she could push the process to the house of representatives. So in short no...she could not just declare Biden the president she would need to follow the process.
I don’t like how Rekeita wouldn’t give a opinionated take about if he was personally on the Supreme Court how would he rule? (i feel like that was bad faith) he doesn’t want to give the obvious take that you can’t have some random joe write on a piece of paper “I’m the state of electors” and Mike pence shouldn’t have the authority to rule that in trumps favor. (This should be pretty obvious take) but he kept saying “well I don’t know, I have no idea” REALLY ? REALLY? you have no idea ? Bro Stalin said - The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.
@@MrRjsnowdenNick is a non practicing lawyer who is constantly wrong. So he turned towards talking about his degenerate lifestyle. When his own chat pleaded for more law talk, he sperged about not being a law channel.
@@MrRjsnowden it wasn’t about research, he was asking for his opinion. If Pence was able to throw out the old electors and implement new ones on a whim to make trump win the election. That would OBVIOUSLY be against the spirit of the constitution and the election. Sitch was probing with that question in order to see if Rek would even admit that. Not admitting to that sounds like bad faith or dick riding trump.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the way Nick is interpreting the law, there was an innate check from the older election system that is no longer there. Originally, the loser of the presidential elections (usually the opposing party) became the VP, and would therefore have a vested interest in preventing this sort of ploy. I imagine this scenario was never dreamt of when the "running-mate" system was implemented and that's where the loophole came from. So the VP position in the election probably was not ceremonial to begin with.
I guess my question is why did they say that they were duly elected? If everyone knew they weren’t and nobody believed them to be the real electors, why would they feel the need to declare that they are duly elected? Is Rekeita an originalist?
There may be legally required "statements" that someone has to make to be considered an elector and without such statements they would be disregarded (possibly on standing grounds). In law such statements are required all the time and people swear to them in good faith despite technically not being true or in the eyes of the opposition it is not true.
@@SirBigDeethank you! That definitely checks out, I’m gonna look into the requirements for electors to declare themselves. And the originalist answer was given by Nick himself so got that one figured out!
@@taknoef9195 apparently someone is a keyboard lawyer who doesn't understand legal argumentation. I didn't say the Constitution had statement requirements and hedged my statement by saying there "may" be such requirements because I don't know every state law about the matter and I'm not going to spend the time to look all of them up. In your own reply, you admit that the individual states make the rules. The original poster understood this because he replied by saying he would look more into it. I am assuming that it is a state requirement because of the plenary power they have over how they run their elections. My post was to correct the poster's conception that it was as black and white as "the electors' sworn statements were wrong therefore they lose." A sworn statement can be found to be factually wrong but not a violation based on a person's good faith beliefs. People regularly swear honestly to things that end up being wrong especially when it comes to law: your post proves this because you probably "honestly" stated "this is false".
Because those states were contested. There were cases regarding fraud and states like Pennsylvania specifically going against their own constitution. The alternate slates of electors were there in the off chance the argument was made in congress and they decided to pick the other slate or send both back until either they find a reasonable conclusion or they throw the electors all out and the vote goes to congress
I wanted to Trump to win in 2020 but I have to say this Mike Pence route of disputing the electors sounds really stupid. I think it's a bad legal theory but not a crime.
He is an attorney. However, he's a baby attorney which can sometimes be more dangerous. A lot of baby attorneys think they know the law but don't have the experience to understand the law or the legal system. Also given the current state of our legal education system, they are more ideologically driven and therefore will attempt to twist the law to give them the result they want instead of working to preserve a fair system.
I personally would like to see the two debate again because the first time was on a multi person panel. I also really just want to see nick tear into pisco when he pushes the condescending tone and righteous indignation tone too far. I still remember when he unloaded on that one dude that got him banned for some time lol
I listened to him rationalize that because my house was accessible by a public road, strange men had the right to enjoy my yard. In his defense, Nick was trying to excuse irrational behavior of his friends.
Thanks guys. You guys did much better discussion with Nick than Destiny had. I get constant crap from Destiny's audience for defending you guys to them. But this conversation is my evidence. Destiny is a political advocate, you guys are truth seekers. When I say that to Destiny's audience, I either get intense flame wars my way or claims that you can be BOTH a truth seeker and political advocate if the truth aligns with one political perspective. The idea of moral intuitions and Moral Foundations Theory is lost on them. Thanks for always being truth seekers. I disagree with you guys often (not as much as you'd might think), but I always come back to your channel because I don't ever even get a WHIFF of bad faith on your guys' part. Destiny...sadly...I do sometimes.
@@SitchAndAdamShowthey don't really but certain members of your audience are very annoying. For example his claim Destiny has no interest in the truth despite him constantly changing his position as he finds new facts & information. He is just as interested in truth as Sitch & Adam he's just less nice about it which sometimes is required.
Every time i think "maybe im just a stupid idiot who doesnt get nicks lawyer words, he does something so braindead/bad faith as pretending not to know the purpose of taking a hypothetical to hyperbolic extremes to make a point. No one said it was actually written on crayon, but without certification whats the difference?
You mean no one holding someone accountable to their own words? Destiny making someone address their own contradictions or holes in their argument is literally just how you debate. Glossing over holes in Nicks argument would be called sucking his cøçk
Just an FYI, it’s YT not them. Yes, it’s unbelievably frustrating. I personally have my own full arguments to make but it ALWAYS gets censored in the comments.
Two big ways Nick lost me. 1) with his 'the slate doesn't have to be signed by the legislator, but obviously if it was written in crayon that doesn't count' - pure post hoc reasoning so that these alternate slates fit exactly his ill defined requirements. 2) saying 'can pence even be defrauded if he doesn't rely on the slates?' but then 'pence has an actual role to play, it's not just ceremonial, but he can't just do anything he wants' - again which is it? If he can just do anything they yes he can be relying on the slates. Same as if it's purely ceremonial and has no power. But if he does have powers to read the certificates, but not free reign to do anything... Then yes, there can be fraud.
17:20 Nick ignores a hypothetical which includes all of his claimed criteria for fraud to go on a tangent about the intent of the law around the VPs role in elector stuff. This is what he did in his convo with Destiny, then he gaslit him as if he was the one doing debate perversion.
Not sure you saw the same stream that I did. He answered by saying it depends on the role of the VP. If its cermonial then he can't do that in the first place. If its a role of authority then he MIGHT and I stress MIGHT be able to invalidate the electors. However, the hypothetical relies on knowing what is in Pence's mind so...
48:45 is where Nick's whole shtick breaks down because his argument comes down to "I dunno, I'm just saying anything is legally possible". What a great lawyer
What are you even talking about? He's having fun with legal theory. It sounds like you have a preexisting issue with him and are looking for something to whine about. Someone spitballing hypothetical at 2am has no bearing on their profession.
the weakest part of rekietas argument really does feel like he glosses over the 60+ court cases when arguing what someone should do when challenging an election. the problem was trump exhausted the legal means at his disposal and went with eastmans memo
You are making the assumption that 60 court cases has some merit toward exhausting efforts. Basically buying the media narrative. Its just like saying 97% of scientists agree....that's not how it works.
Not all 60 cases were brought by Trump, as Nick pointed out some were really bonehead ones by Sidney Powell etc. Also They had less than 2 months to try to try to acquire and sift through any or all evidence of election fraud in multiple states with different situations and different laws in those different states and try to put together the most coherent legal challenges they could... all in less than 2 months. Nick also made a good point in that say youre a judge in Georgia, do you really want to be the judge flung into the national spotlight because you allowed a case to be heard that is now going to delay/affect an election that was already essentially all but decided for the first time in the history of the country in this way? And now youre the judge that did that, and 50% of the country hates you immediately, probably getting death threats, probably getting pressured in all sorts of other ways, youre life will never be the same again etc etc. Theres all sorts of these factors too outside the actual legal grounds themselves. What if the judges honestly didnt know what a case being allowed would even mean, what if they thought it wouldnt matter so they might as well just deny it them, but they are wrong or they just dont know either how a case like this would work. I think if im Trump or on his legal team, and I truly believe the election was fradulent in multiple states in an egregious faction and there was evidence that would sway the electoral college count back to my favor legitimately I would also throw every possible avenue at the wall in a relatively novel situation like this and even then only having 2 months probably felt like they had zero time to actually figure this out properly...
@@annatardlordofderps9181 In these conversations, Nick refuses to put forward an opinion of how things should go either legally or morally. When the people he debates put forward an opinion, he either says “maybe”, or he appeals to the lack of a process through which to challenge the votes to condone the actions. He puts himself in the position of judging others arguments, and smirks while people twist themselves into knots trying to convince him of their position. The people he debates aren’t realizing that he doesn’t care about their positions, he is just messing with them
@@SlatekingNo, he just essentially said I don't know. This is a sufficient answer and is better than a binary yes or no because in either scenario he'd be lying. You don't like it because it's not the answer you want.
@@Keenskopf making an absolute fool of himself drunk on his own streams, and in general, getting catfished by "mandy" who is really a dude, defending some fairly dubious people in weird Internet beefs, speculation about him being separated from his wife and family. Just a general slide into degenerate alcoholism.
@Keenskopf Apparently, I can't post what's been going on. Which is odd because I didn't use any profanity and didn't say anything there isn't video of. I guess you'll have to find out on your own lol
@@Texasp12 Which is honestly the only reasonable opinion to have about any lawyer, even ones that you usually like. 100 lawyers at the bottom of a lake, and all that.
My ultimate dream for the upcoming election is that Trump has a great running mate, gets elected, then gets impeached and booted from office quickly afterwards. No Trump, No Biden. Good times.
LMFAO or Trump gets elected, finally exposes all of the documents that show that the 2020 election was a sham, Obama indeed spied on his 2016 campaign, there were a bunch of illegal shenanigans between Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and a DNC, and master rest happen as a watershed moment for the country as people start to realize that Trump with being persecuted because he knew where all the dead bodies were
If the roles were reversed, I have absolutely zero faith that Rekieta would be bending over backwards to defend Kamala's right to do what he's saying Mike Pence might've been allowed to do. He's obviously letting his elephant guide him. And to be honest, I'm disappointed that the boys didn't bring up this evidence of bad faith to him. Pisco was very active in the chat - host a debate between them both next time! Now that's something I'd love to see.
You're already missing his stance on the matter, then if that's what you believe. Nick would definitely be acting the same way if the roles were reversed. Mainly due to how taboo it is to question the legitimacy election these days.
@lukew6725 I feel like his point doesn't hold weight. There is a process to do this, and it was in the courts. And they lost. Trump also had his district attorney look into it, and they didn't find anything. I think rekeita is just saying all this because of his anti democrats.
@@hpinales18 No, they never said there wasn't fraud just not a level to change the election. There is some level of fraud in every election, it's just bound to happen. What the democrats did was setup a perfect storm with universal mail in ballots, extending late voting, and other measures to give themselves an advantage. It wasn't against the law just they played their hand and the media helped them at well even Times put out that big piece about the consorted effort to make sure Trump lost.
1:23:06 -- There are legal ways to challenge it - which they did, lost (half the time bc they had no evidence). Decided they weren’t happy with that outcome bc that meant the candidate they wanted didn’t win so instead of protesting it if they still had a problem or looking for additional evidence, they created fake documents they were trying to pass off as being real (whether anyone believed them or not). This is just frustratingly ridiculous and feels like gaslighting by Nick.
@@SomeDumbSpider - there’s a quote that Trump said in the legal docs “Just say it’s corruption and I’ll handle the rest”. Also based on the other evidence including the emails between VP and Eastman, it shows what the intentions were… They also were trying to have judges sign additional documents but the judges said no. Also, why would they try to get into the active elector meeting if it wasn’t to try and fool anyone?
@@SomeDumbSpider - Honestly, I wish I could provide it but my comments keep getting hidden when I do. It’s in the case file documents. Do control F search to make it easier to find.
@@HostileTakeover555 steelman, if you were a staunch Trump supporter (in office at the time) and had watched all and sundry crucify the man for four years, and then witnessed the one side push no voter ID, open borders, and flooding empty ballots while wink winking to "vote often" ..... what would you think?
This is exactly right. The level of cope we are seeing relies on ignoring all the opportunities that trump was given to make his case and how poor their cases were in court
@libertariansasquatch the state legislature does not have full authority to do what it wants with electors. One of the biggest SCOTUS cases of last year, Moore v. Harper, makes clear that a legislature cannot just change electors willy nilly. Now, either Rekita isn't up to date on the biggest con law cases of the last year, or, what is more likely, he's purposefully misleading Sitch to act like his argument is on firm ground. His entire position crumbles like a house of cards if you actually follow constitutional law.
The Democrat party stood on the steps of the Capitol, and held a memorial service for the "5 Capitol police killed by insurrectionists" on January 6th.
The service started with Hakeem Jeffreys speech in their memory.
They all knew that was a lie, but did it anyway, in front of the journalists and cameras. It's still on YT, if anyone wants to watch it.
Does nobody else find that really, really worrying?
The only insurrection to murder a man who's death was found to have been of natural causes with no sign of internal or external injury. Funny how they know who did it, but didn't charge them with any sort of homicide...
Oh do you think the deep state epsteined them?
That UA-cam felt the need to censor the other two responses to your comment tells you all you need to know. People are concerned but have that view suppressed to give the impression that's not the case.
@@__-nd5qino, because no police were killed on January 6th at the Capitol.
@@Athetos_Admech the replies are there, but you have to go to 'newest' and work back to see them 🤷♂️.
But I'm not getting notifications of replies, or even likes!
Unfortunately, the boys didn't understand the argument. It's not their fault, they are not attorneys. He was not making a free speech argument under the 1st Amendment. He was making a right to petition the government argument under the 1st Amendment. This is a constitutional right because a government that can deny you the right to petition the government concerning grievances can make any right that you have worthless. His point was there was no method to contest what they believed to be a fraudulent election result except to send their own electors.
Huh. That is honestly one of the most interesting points I have read in a minute.
I’m not aware of that petition phrase in 1A being a distinct right under the first amendment, I’ve never seen any authority for that, nor does that justify forging electoral college forms given that fraud is one of the main exceptions to the first amendment protections.
This proposition isn’t even true about having no venue to contest the election. The court are venue, trump just lost in the proper venue so tried to circumvent them.
This is in part why the whole process of levying an objection exists - and it's not like you can show up to that event, say "I object," not present an alternative, and be taken seriously.
That's why the electors become illegal if Trump loses his case.
@@silentcallingeven less so if you show up and your alternative is completely made up
Adam and Nick streaming with no politics would be great.
I love that streams like these are a choose-your-own-adventure type of affair.
You could choose lawful good and listen to Sitch and Rekieta having an interesting discussion on the left or
focus on Adam and chat being chaotic neutral on the right of the screen.
And then you're a fool like me, listening to the whole thing before reading the comments, and now I have to watch it a second time to see the antics!
Or focus specifically on Pisco malding in the chat.
Adam has become a better mod & cohost since breaking out the clip art
As my favorite internet lawyer Attorney Tom has said many times “It depends.” Which is why it’s so stupid that people just argue trump is guilty full stop. As it turns out we have lawyers because the law has to be interpreted constantly and lawyers job is to argue for their interpretation of it
@@toddpacker4683 innocent until proven guilty.
I would say, on it's face, trying to swap electors is probably illegal. The thing is, I don't know if the charge would be fraud or conspiracy of some sort, or maybe something to do with obstructing the certification process. I would also say that both sides would probably abandon their current arguments if a Dem were being accused. I think Dems would suddenly be more open-minded and Reps would be demanding that Treason charges be brought.
Unfortunately, that is our starting point. However, it's hard to say how the law will be interpreted, depending on who is making the ruling. I think motive is a factor that can carry a lot of weight but sometimes, good intentions aren't enough to absolve someone of a crime. Like, the guy who stormed Comet Pizza looking to free child sex slaves.
I think even the most biased observer would agree that it is okay to take extreme action in order to rescue children. But, clearly the courts felt that the gunman had insufficient evidence to justify his actions. On the one hand, I think it's kinda sad that a seemingly decent man, who is a husband and father, would face such harsh consequences, while trying to do a good thing. On the other hand, I think it is dangerous to allow gullible people the right to carry out vigilante justice. The man clearly believed that he was going to be saving kids, but it would be an extremely slippery slope to grant leniency to well-meaning vigilantes.
It all comes down to circumstance. The courts were unmoved by the Comet Pizza guy, but the father who tried to attack Larry Nassir (Gymnastics groper) in the court room was treated with great sympathy. The judge spoke a few harsh words at the father, then ordered him to be released and no charges were brought against him. In the 1st example, I believe that man provided a weak explanation for his actions, whereas the 2nd example involved a father reacting in a way that almost anyone could understand.
At the end of the day, it's gonna come down to whether or not the courts believe there was a compelling reason for the actions in question to be taken.
@@gotyouchip1179 How convenient
unless it's Arby's
How can a law be interpreted differently? The law was made with an intention. Shouldn’t it be interpreted by the way the person/person’s intended the law to mean?
Actually a pleasant conversation (overall) I was scared.
Thanks Stug!
The problem with these electors is simply this: we can only really go on past precedent and authority/power given to entities such as state legislatures. This is why for example when Trump won in 2016 many people who opposed Trump kept saying “well the electoral college doesn’t necessarily necessitate the electors vote for Trump” and technically they were right but as Rekita pointed out they would have to put a good faith reason forward to enact this. It never happened before at such a scale but this is where the Russian hacking really came from and gained so much prominence if anyone remembers the timeline. A number of house democrats at the time pout forward the idea that since Russia had been “accused” (at the time of the vote) of hacking voting machines it could bring into question whether or not Donald Trump was the true winner of these states. (Of course they did this this to conflate the idea that Trump knew and wanted Russia to help him win but the legal argument would have probably ignored this)
If this scenario played out though the election doesn’t just stop. It would go through the courts and the election would essentially just play out over a longer timeline until these answers came forward.
This is why I don’t think Trump will be convicted on conspiracy to commit fraud because we have to presume unless proven otherwise Trump and his administration was putting a good faith challenge up through legal means and open legal questions. However that does not mean that Trump is off Scot free. I think it is completely fair to say that these actions are immoral and or highly suspect for a politician to engage in. But of course given the reaction and how democrats want Trump off the ballot basically puts into question their previous statements about protecting democracy and I think completely undermines their legal/political arguments. Especially considering democrats were putting forward similar legal theory in 2016
They are engaging in a similar open legal question that really doesn’t have much merit in the hopes of swaying the results.
This is further muddied by just the general political climate and why democrats need January 6th to be important. They want to make the connection that Trump was willing to essentially use his supporters to obstruct the vote to pull a quickie under everyone’s nose.
In reality we need to see it for what it is: an open question that needs to be answered by courts or laws created and hopefully move on and disincentivize this from happening again. And a bipartisan federal bill did do this on the federal level.
To my last point: I really do think if Trump wins the election and it’s looking like he has a fair chance I don’t think democrats will simply bend over and allow him to get in. I do think we will see a huge bout of hypocrisy from both sides and that is why it is important for people in the middle and the objective court systems to exist. And I do think this is why Trump supporters were more willing to accept Trumps denial of the election. While the democrats did not do it one the same scale they certainly
Popularized questioning election results in 2000 and 2016 and the mainstream media seemed to be very friendly to it. Particularly in 2016 when TDS people used a buzzfeed article with highly suspect information as the basis for years of investigation and political hackery to suggest Trump was a traitor and or puppet that fraudulently elected and it really only fell out of favor when the Ukraine impeachment took the spot light. Also do not forget what they did to Kavenagh who was merely appointed by Trump. Democrats were more than willing to destroy a man’s reputation over an accusation with literally no merit.
@@xayori Nice of you to slip that "seriously" in there.
Very well said. I think Biden would jump in the poles if he condemned the actions by the Colorado SC. I also think if the DOJ dropped all of the legal charges against Trump it would further push people in the middle toward Biden. I think all of this just goes to the tribal nature of today's politics and the need to for one party to retain power at all costs.
Ome thing you're missing is Trump had legitimate gripes about the 2020 election, the democrats didn't for 2016. And our legal system isn't objective. It's filled with people who love power and hate Trump and will do whatever it takes to not have him as president. Why disincentivize it from happening again? Just let what happened in 2020 keep happening? If you really are objective and actually look at what happened, there's no way you say everything was on the up and up that night. Pennsylvania ignored their own constitution and then just said we're allowed to do it. Bc Republicans are cowards, they did nothing about it and let it happen. How are they allowed to go against their own constitution and then just say well we're allowed to do so, so there's no foul here. That's just 1 state too. There were multiple others with a ton of bs that happened. The only way to get past that would have been to actually investigate it and not just say it was the freest and fairest election in the history of forever. Democrats don't care about democracy, which is stupid bc we're not a democracy anyway, we're a constitutional republic, and they don't care about the rule of law. They will do and say whatever they have to in order to win and maintain their power. Why you think our border is wide open? Millions of new voters for them pouring in every year.
I'm really really glad this went well. Nick can be a tough guy to talk to. He claims he oppositional defiant disorder, which I was skeptical at first, but I think it's pretty reasonable to take him on his word with that. He really _really_ likes to push things to the brink with "well why not" or "well hold on now" to any and all ad absurdum argument made for the sake of moving the conversation forward. I've got the benefit of far too many hours listening to his mad ramblings to know how to filter it.
But at the end of the day he's got a lot of excellent insight - it sometimes just takes many hours for him to get it out in a way that's digestible for people, by which time he's usually had enough whiskey that he just starts trolling. Personally, I had no trouble understanding the point he was trying to make to Destiny, though I readily accept the fundamental difference between understanding as an audience and understanding as a participant; and that I have had some exposure to adjacent topics to help contextualize it and a general understanding of the complexity and nuance of law, especially when it's a novel issue, and doubly so when it hits the really high levels of the judicial system and questions of the Constitution. The problem he had with Destiny _could_ have been overcome if he realized he needed to start back at the beginning every time he developed an idea, because Destiny likely did not retain it in a way that made it readily available to provide him with that context.
If you wanna get some further insight on this specific topic, Donald Trump himself was a guest on the Good Logic channel with a good supplemental and superior legal communications. (inside joke from the stream)
It was refreshing to hear when the points would click with Sitch.
BTW if you ever wanna get into the weeds about SCOTUS, Uncivil Law is your guy. I imagine he'd be more than happy to come on any time.
@@amandzzz
He behaves rather slimy and gets angry when people point out he’s non practicing lol
Rekieta can be hard to talk to because he's an alcoholic and often extremely drunk.
how does it matter if he's "non practicing"?! @@AuraStorm
@@amandzzz I can assure you that not even he would claim he is a good lawyer - in fact, he has stated exactly that. I can also assure you that, based on the half a dozen lawyers that I watch, he deviates from them far more than they deviate from each other. His "training" includes law school, and a very small amount of practicing, with virtually no court experience. It was not a career for him, just a paycheck, and that's why he jumped to UA-cam once it became financially suitable. There was a time when he was the second highest superchat earner on UA-cam.
He is a hardline libertarian, defiant, fond of presenting difficult edge cases specifically to explore the fringes of law, rather than the law everyone is comfortable with - because there are many unanswered questions, including on issues with that have a long history of being interpreted in a certain way - and he spends more time chilling and having fun than talking about legal stuff.
Your objection to him using legal arguments is pretty baffling, since they were discussing _checks notes_ the law.
People like Nick for his personality, not his legal expertise.
I don't know what lawyer hurt you, but there's no need to take it out on others.
@@GangsterFrankensteinComputer It's really funny to me when he hits the point where his brain becomes incapable of forming coherent thoughts but people don't notice - that's when you get the "why not though" "why shouldn't it be" "well hold on, though" and they start to seethe lol. It's not good content, but there is humor when you know what's going on and how futile the other persons' point are
Listening to this was great but then actually watching Adam’s shenanigans made it 10x better
Nick is just, well versed on legal stuff, even his alcohol reduced brain can easily make arguments on it
Its when you question his non practicing lawyer status he gets mad
@@AuraStormthis is my first time hearing him really. I’ve heard S&A bring him before but first actually seeing him.
For some reason "Thank you @0fux for the $1 and the shit emoji" has me cracking up. I should probably take a nap or something.
One thing that you guys messed up on. This is the fact that you keep on thinking that pens has the ability to pick one slate of electors over another 1. But that's not true. He has the ability to send it to the house to have them vote on it. 4 to say Hey, there's a vision evidence here. Let's send it back to the state to be looked over
Sitch saying that he disagrees with his arguments is interesting and maybe even a little disingenuous. He spoke on the law. Really, there are only two things that can be said in disagreement: 1. I don't agree with the law, and it needs changing. 2. I don't agree with your interpretation of the law.
Online debaters have a very difficult time with this concept. That's why attorneys having debates with online debaters is sometimes pointless. However this interaction was more of a conversation than a debate.
I agree. Sitch was in full you tube debate mode. The nuance of what power the VP has really makes this more of a legal interpretation question. Honestly until that question is answered not sure any of the Federal cases hold water. Even if the US SC says yep the VP just has a customary action even then I don't know if any of the cases hold up because there was no law or SC decision at the time of the acts?? I wonder how that works??
@@SirBigDee Agreed. There is too much emphasis on winning and farming clips as opposed to reaching the truth and finding solutions.
@MrRjsnowden that's a far more interesting topic. Would love to see that debate. Instead, most youtube debates break down to, "It should be this way because that makes me feel comfortable. Anything that makes me feel uncomfortable is wrong, and I don't agree." Lol
What? Sitch? A disingenuous leftist?
Nick's point is that there's no obvious answer as to what would constitute fraud in this case. It's an open legal question. And he's presenting considerations. Or have I missed something?
Well, yeah, in a reductionist sense. The Constitution wasn't "solved" by the Farmers. Legal theory exists for a reason.
@@aureate In a reductionist sense?
@@tipzdaturtle I said reductionist because this isn't really a matter of fraud as far as Nick is concerned. It's a matter of what authorities the Constitution implies the Speaker of the House has. Destiny is trying to make it about fraud. As far as I can tell, Nick is saying that, historically, this element of the Constitution hasn't been challenged and, if handled properly, it would be up to the SCOTUS to issue a ruling. In short, Nick is saying that there is a wrinkle in the Constitution for the SCOTUS to iron out, whereas Destiny (and both Sitch & Adam for that matter) is insisting that it's cut and dry.
On a separate note, I find Destiny's point funny because even "cut and dry" things like the First and Second Amendments have received plenty of rulings from the SCOTUS. Assuming that anything in the Constitution is obvious is silly. The framers recognized that virtually every is open to being challenged, hence why Article 3 exists in the first place.
An hour in listening to Sitch refuse to try and grasp a concept...one that he is fully capable of grasping. We know you hate the orange man, but damn dude.
Nick- “fraud requires that people be fooled…”
Sitch- “You’re not FOOLING anyone!”
Me- * facepalm *
I dunno. I’ve spent years listening to these people bitch and moan and whine and I still don’t really hear an argument. As usual their entire perspective hinges on the idea that Trump is simply the most self-interested, amoral cartoon gangster ever to walk the earth, entirely incapable of acting out of anything but the worst of all possible intentions, always. And that therefore, they are entitled to dispense with any and all benefit of the doubt, just because they say so.
What, you got some kind of problem with that, fascist?
Anyway, Sitch seems determined to flush all his likability down the f’ng toilet on this one and take the show with it.
He's actually responding to reality, unlike you worshiping the golden calf that is Trump
@@wordshurt2676 Oh you mean the reality of just reading the indictments and using J6 committee testimony as support for said reality. Come on man. You don't need to claim someone is a Trump simp just because you don't like what they say??
@@wordshurt2676The funny part is you worship him more then anyone. TDS is a cult after all. even after all this he will live rent free in your head. dont deny it
@@MrRjsnowdenthey are coping, coping and seething 🎶
I think I’m starting to understand this now. Thanks.
Lol listening to destiny flip topics between Jan 6 and the electors and trying to “own” his oppo. Isn't a educational.
@@Jchasser I was just glad these guys did a breakdown. I tried listening to the unfiltered debate, but it was all over the place.
@@johnbuckner2828 cause destiny didn't understand his point that the liecan't cause harm because the process doesn't rely on the lie of the alternate electors. The state has the authority to claim them against the interest of the people. So there can't be harm as the state can go against the voters...its absolutely fucked up...but they can. So there's no fraud cause there's no harm either way and the process is constitutional
Ah Sitch grasping for a win. The whole question is really simply did the Vice President even have the power to do what Eastman thought the office could do.
You say that as if it's heartily contested. Pretty much everyone agrees that the answer is no. Even those that don't agree, still accept the answer is probably not. Even Eastmen himself accepts that the answer is probably not
@@HopelessDjinn Does everyone though?? The problem is unless its in law as a hard no then Trump was following the process no matter how much we all hate the process. I think it really needs to be cleaned up in clear language. Its a dangerous ambiguity.
@@MrRjsnowden That's not how law works. Not everything is permitted unless a law specifies it isn't, that's ridiculous. There's no law that says a 5 year old can't decide who the next president is based on who buys them the best toy for christmas, yet why would we ever assume that's a possibility?
Destiny Jr. over here
@@Google_Censored_Commenter Actually that is how the law works. If there is no law against something, it is legal. As for your hypothetical example, there are multiple laws which say a 5 year old can't decide who the next president is.
The jump the shark for me in that debate between Destiny and Rekeita was when Destiny said Trump was lying a priori and that his reason for believing that was simply that's what he wanted to believe.
I think along that line of thought that Destiny simply did not presume innocence in this case, but the problem for him is that it is a literal requirement of our system. Unless there is proof Trump did not believe there was any fraud we have to presume innocence, that he did in fact believe there was fraud.
Nick called him out on this at the end, telling him to prove that Trump doesn't believe his own claims. Destiny seemingly can't fathom that Trump could have a good faith belief is his claims, but that is his own bias. Legally you have to presume he does unless shown otherwise.
I fully believe that a narcissist like Trump fully believed the election not going his way meant there was fraud, especially after the low turn outs to the few Biden rallies there were and how Biden mostly did not campaign and what he did was very weak and ordinarily suicidal for a politician to say. But then I talked to my mother about the Fetterman v. Dr. Oz "debate" and she was fully on Fetterman's team because of the "D" next to his name and clarity on abortion stance.
@@deaj8450no you only assume innocence if it’s a “minority” doing a heinous crime
@deaj8450 personally I believe trump doesn't really believe in his claims. He may be lying to himself but deep down he knows he lost.
The problem is that I can't prove that. There is a difference between me being convinced of something and me being able to prove it in a court of law.
@@aveygtbasically you aren’t here to hand out objectivity when it’s an entirely subjective and almost unprovable claim.
No, state law has priority over Federal law except in those cases explicitly laid out in the Constitution.
Sitch one of the things you gotta understand in law is all head cannon.
Its someones headcannon that someone commits murder. They think they have facts in evidence that someone committed murder.
Theres nothing which is sure untill the innocent or guilty sentence.
Isn't this dangerously close to the leftists that say there's no truth only power?
@@wordshurt2676 court is litreally a fact finding excercise.
There is truth but it is decided by a jury.
I think Nick stated, pretty clearly, that his biggest concern is the underlying retaliatory nature of what the government is doing in prosecuting January Six and Trump.
To me, that's the end of the discussion. This is a massive violation of the social contract between giant swaths of people who vehemently disagree with each other. I think the way people approach this concern, especially when they don't like Trump, is horribly blind to that fact. If all you care about is whether or not a crime was committed, good for you. It's still stupid to ignore the other calculus in the question.
Let's say this prosecution goes through. Trump and his team are all convicted to 7 trillion years in prison, or whatever it is. Then Trump goes to prison. Great, now what? The left of center/centrists who dislike Trump can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Justice was served! Some of it might have been more than a little bit politically retributive, but who cares about that. We got the bad guy!
Then there's the, what, 40 million voters on the other side of that. Now they think the government is so stacked against them that their entire political view is now just a hair away from being criminalized. And you think that's going to go well for our nation?
Let me put it this way. Imagine if Trump had actually thrown Hillary in prison after the 2016 election. Bill Barr talked about that with Trump. And Trump said to drop it because it was all rhetoric. But imagine if it wasn't. The left of center who voted for Clinton who didn't think there was anything substantively wrong with what she did would now be in the exact same position as the hypothetical above that we are way too close to comfort for.
I think this is way past bad. It's way past dangerous. The people prosecuting Trump and J6 people are playing with some really hot fire. And rather than try and cool things down, they constantly throw gas on it. And the only response people have when there's protest about that is: "wElL TrUmP isN'T aBoVe ThE LaW!!!" Great. Keep stoking the fire and see how well it goes. Maybe nothing will happen and people will get over it. I really hope people get over it. But I'm not confident that the right is going to be level headed enough to just let these prosecutions happen without some really, REALLY serious downstream affects. Whether that's retaliation in the future, or worse.
I wish you all would treat that problem more seriously. Because Destiny's "Well can Trump just murder someone" whataboutism just ignores the actual issue being raised about political retaliation.
You’re worried if the right will be level-headed enough?
Which side set entire cities on fire for 6 months in 2020?
You say you want to cool the temperature and then go on to blame only one side for the potential downstream effects of what’s happening because The Right (tm) is super unhinged and you’re afraid they won’t be able to keep their sht together.
Pretty words, but you’re just like the rest.
Sitch lost me awhile when he said Trump shouldn't do to the left what they're doing to him and that's why he doesn't want him to win. Oh so political persecution is okay when it's the left eh?
Nope. destiny explicitly left legal recourse out of the discussion that you clearly didn't watch.
His point was about whether deliberately lying that the alternate electors, regardless of whether voter fraud claims were real, was fraud. All Nick does is say it's not fraud because no one would fall for it, then insults Destiny in his classic arrogant fashion.
@@CodySvsTheNet
"Bad thing is bad no matter who does it"
"SO THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT?!?!"
You have the reasoning of a child. Please read a book or something
@@__keys I'm sure it's super fun that you can concoct fun little fantasies like "you didn't watch."
But I did. Both Destiny and Rekieta's discussion and this entire video. And the video they did after this with GoodLawgic.
I understand that the presuppositions can be stripped out of any debate. But it's still something both sides of any discussion should be cognizant of. Because, if you aren't, then your arguments start getting into ridiculous hypotheticals like "the president murdering members of Congress trying to impeach him."
If Destiny wanted to take his discussion to the absurd based on the presupposition he was operating with, that presidents are not above the law. Then it has to go both ways, and Nick's presuppositions should also have been properly explored. That retribution should factor into the calculation. Because that's actually real life.
Every proposed order is written as an affirmative. Any attorney would know this. The fact that Rekeita completely fumbles this opportunity to educate Sitch on this when it's Sitch's primary argument and misunderstanding is beyond frustrating.
Adam you wanted to get better at debating this year. BPF wants the heat give it to him
Finally glad you two actually heard the arguments you have been strawmaning the right on
The law to one degree or another relays on legal positivism. There are situations particularly in property law where the courts will construct some right or entitlement even though it may not be necessarily True, or entirely logically justified. A lot of law is not intuitive because of this; however, constitutional law in particular always has some rational or reasons to justify the constructed interpretations some are more intuitive than others, i.e. I have a problem intuitively using the modern interpretation of the commerce clause.
Listening to sitch at the end try and summarize Nicks argument and completely butcher it is so hard lmao
Classic Sitch…
😂
@@taknoef9195 practically all of it
Pro tip: select newest comments instead of top comments to see more of the comment section its dumb I know but YT dislikes us I guess
Thank you, it drives me nuts.
"Talking to Nick Rekieta About His Destiny Jan 6 Trump Convo" or "Why I left the S-Class".
Adam is having way too much fun with that Fly
If the VPOTUS has the authority to rule on the validity of the electors, rather than his role being ceremonial, and a person could come to the conclusion that the state is in dispute, and VPOTUS is a person, does that not then mean that VPOTUS could do what Trump demanded?
Personally, I don't think VPOTUS has legislative powers which are not explicitly named and granted, as VPOTUS is still an officer of the executive with limited legislative powers added on, and therefore this role should be ceremonial. But if we interpret this role as being one of arbiter, it stands to reason that this means VPOTUS has the ability to discard undesired electors as long as VPOTUS expresses the sincere belief that they are invalid for xyz reason.
I do think allowing any officer of the executive to rule on who the next executive should be can never be allowed, even if that IS what the law says. The law should change if that is what we interpret it to mean.
"I don't think this is a legitimate avenue to challenge an election." -Adam
I completely agree on political grounds that it's a giant turd. However, it's also not seemingly illegal. It's testing novel legal grounds, which politicians have been historically unwilling to cross because it's a giant political minefield and likely to result in bad outcomes. But not everything that's a bad idea, even a horrible idea, is necessarily a crime. I think it would have been a wise political move for Biden to issue a pardon to Trump, preventing any appearance of weaponizing the law against his opponent, while attacking Trump for pushing boundaries that aren't appropriate resolutions to political disputes.
Of course, I could be wrong about the optics of that strategy. The perception, at least among many conservatives and MAGA people, is that the GOP has too long tried to abide to political norms of civility, and Trump is popular because he does not hold back. He's not about getting along with the left, he attacks and fights. Maybe trying to stay above the fight would blow up in Democrats' faces, but I think it would have been a clever way to defuse Trump by depriving him of being able to play the victim.
This is a stupid claim and I’m going to tell you why. First off, you’re not going to get that conviction wear a pardon will happen. Truck was literally acquitted in the Senate of the charges of insurrection. Everything you are currently thing now our civil cases, and that’s for a reason. No lawyer or court reasonably thinks they can get Trump on the criminal definition of insurrection. Because they just simply can’t. There are no documents that show Truck was literally trying to overthrow the country.
Next, because of the trump derangement syndrome that has progressed through the country, A pardon is not an option.
It would not only make the Democrats look weak, it would make their cries about insurrection fall on deaf ears. Insurrection was such a issue that they cried about it for years, but at the same time we are supposed to believe it is an easily forgivable offense? You can’t have both.
Lastly you said something about depriving Trump of looking like the victim, well it’s too bad that’s the case. Because without a doubt Biden is persecuting Trump. And more and more people are starting to believe that the 2020 election was indeed a stolen election.
Anything can be a legal theory, this doesn't mean the plan is necessarily legal or free from prosecution.
I can interpret a law any way I want, (legal theory) this doesnt mean anything at all.
Actually what he says does mean something. When there is ambiguity in the law the benefit of the doubt must be given to the individual making the novel challenge over the government. This is why laws can be voided for vagueness. It builds upon the core principle of innocent until proven guilty. The government must show that the law on a subject is clear enough for a reasonable person to understand what they are, and aren’t, allowed to do. In the case of challenging election results, the most prominent bit of case precedence prior to 2020 is the Bush v Gore and the Kennedy v Nixon cases. Many of the legal tactics used by Trump lawyers, and those aligned were come up with using precedence for those cases. Considering no one who brought challenges, or alternate slates of electors, in those elections was ever prosecuted, it is reasonable to believe that challenging in that way is legal. Now if we determine as a nation we don’t like that then we can change the law, but what we can’t do is then charge the person that presented those theories in the case of 2020 being that the lawyers were relying on case precedence to bring the challenges.
Interesting revisiting this after the recent, incident with Rekita law.
Honestly its interesting as i would not have taken away from the Destiny convo what he claims his argument was.
Even after a 2nd watch this seems like post modern legalese to justify a dubious claim.
I mean seriously do you think he would be bending like this to claim any certificate is what the text is referring too, if Democrats randomly declared we have to use they're 2nd surprise slate of electors.
I would hammered the absurd claim of a president telepathically declassifying a document.
The actual problem in the Destiny conversation was Rekita kept coming back to you cant hold somebody responsible for an attempted crime. He kept coming back to it wasn't purgy to impersonate the electors, lie under oath, or even conspiracy to commit the act despite that all being plain as day.
Also Destiny didn't say they were illegitimate he said the cases & investigations didn't turn up anything. Thats different. RL wants to pretend it was dismissed out of hand but thats not true. Honestly it just seems like hes desperate to not have an actual position on any of the facts.
Also while im not a lawyer but i know there has been cases of people challenging & proving voter fraud, the infamous cemetery votes from the 60s I believe. I dont see why you couldn't just use that standard to challenge it. Sure it would have to be scaled up but the legal reasoning should be the same.
He makes some good points. 2024 is going to get crazy 😂
Didnt know i even missed this yesterday
Thank fk for Ritalin. That legal discussion at the start would've been noise without it. 😂
There were a lot of hypotheticals, and I felt like a few more could have been brought up.
There was the case of the fraudulent check and conspiring with a teller at the bank. But imagine this alternative hypothetical. You want the bank to give you $5,000. The bank is completely aware of you, and knows your story. Perhaps you've come into some recent hardship that the bank is aware of and you need $5,000 to pay for medical bills or whatever. The bank, as an entity, the chief officers and the full board have decided they want you to have $5,000. If you then walk in with a forged check asking for $5,000, and they just give it to you, the money that they've decided they want you to have, is that a fraud?
Here's another hypothetical, one that would have been well posed to Nick. Imagine Trump overwhelmingly won Pennsylvania. He got 80% of the vote, biggest margin in Pennsylvania probably since George Washington, and everyone was aware of that. Then, the Pennsylvania legislature holds a special sessions and says, "Screw that, all of our Electors are going to Biden, we don't care." And they send in a slate of Biden Electors and everyone knows this. They have the plenary authority to just do this, ignoring their own processes. If Pence then rejects the Biden Electors, is he usurping the state's power to choose their electors by any process?
Also, in the above hypothetical, Pennsylvania is discriminating against a certain class. They've established laws for their own elections that the public in that state is relying upon, which says that they have the right to determine which candidate for President the state's electors are voting for. Since they're depriving this particular class of voters of their right to choose their president, it seems like there's grounds for a Civil Rights suit to be filed against the State Legislature. Now, you can make arguments that voting for presidential candidates is not a "right" because it's not the constitutional process, however, since states have codified a process into law that citizens are meant to rely upon, that right can't be deprived absent due process. So can this class of Trump voters sue, on the grounds that they are a specific class that the state is discriminating against?
In your first question, the issue is the intent, so the action of knowingly giving a forged check is still fraud regardless of the actions of the other side, even if it's functionally unenforceable.
In your second question, if anything, Trump winning 80% of the vote would be an _incredibly_ strong sign of malfeasance by Trump and saying screw the count, send alternate electors would probably be justified. But if we follow your hypothetical, this would be a sign of a breakdown in federalization, Pennsylvania would be considered a rogue state, ejected from the union and would be invaded in a new civil war. If this changed the election result, the correct maneuver would be for congress to impeach the president.
Is Adam watching over videos in the background? Lol 20:16
He’s reading and typing in chat.
Q: If this scenario happens in the 2024 election, with this aforementioned dispute, can VP Kamala Harris determine that Biden is president?
It depends on what happens in the election. If Biden believes there is widespread voter fraud and there is reasonable objection Kamal could force the states to validate electors, or if the states certify mixed electors then she could push the process to the house of representatives. So in short no...she could not just declare Biden the president she would need to follow the process.
Well the democrats literally did this before but we just pretend it never happened
I don’t like how Rekeita wouldn’t give a opinionated take about if he was personally on the Supreme Court how would he rule? (i feel like that was bad faith) he doesn’t want to give the obvious take that you can’t have some random joe write on a piece of paper “I’m the state of electors” and Mike pence shouldn’t have the authority to rule that in trumps favor. (This should be pretty obvious take) but he kept saying “well I don’t know, I have no idea” REALLY ? REALLY? you have no idea ? Bro Stalin said - The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.
He answered that by saying he was not sure and he would need to research. I guess you just want internet bro answers to everything.
@@MrRjsnowdenNick is a non practicing lawyer who is constantly wrong. So he turned towards talking about his degenerate lifestyle. When his own chat pleaded for more law talk, he sperged about not being a law channel.
@@MrRjsnowden it wasn’t about research, he was asking for his opinion. If Pence was able to throw out the old electors and implement new ones on a whim to make trump win the election. That would OBVIOUSLY be against the spirit of the constitution and the election. Sitch was probing with that question in order to see if Rek would even admit that. Not admitting to that sounds like bad faith or dick riding trump.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the way Nick is interpreting the law, there was an innate check from the older election system that is no longer there. Originally, the loser of the presidential elections (usually the opposing party) became the VP, and would therefore have a vested interest in preventing this sort of ploy. I imagine this scenario was never dreamt of when the "running-mate" system was implemented and that's where the loophole came from. So the VP position in the election probably was not ceremonial to begin with.
Sitch says he wont be on much longer so i checked and still another hour left. Sitch and adam time similar to drug dealer time
I guess my question is why did they say that they were duly elected? If everyone knew they weren’t and nobody believed them to be the real electors, why would they feel the need to declare that they are duly elected?
Is Rekeita an originalist?
There may be legally required "statements" that someone has to make to be considered an elector and without such statements they would be disregarded (possibly on standing grounds). In law such statements are required all the time and people swear to them in good faith despite technically not being true or in the eyes of the opposition it is not true.
@@SirBigDeethank you! That definitely checks out, I’m gonna look into the requirements for electors to declare themselves.
And the originalist answer was given by Nick himself so got that one figured out!
@@taknoef9195 apparently someone is a keyboard lawyer who doesn't understand legal argumentation. I didn't say the Constitution had statement requirements and hedged my statement by saying there "may" be such requirements because I don't know every state law about the matter and I'm not going to spend the time to look all of them up. In your own reply, you admit that the individual states make the rules. The original poster understood this because he replied by saying he would look more into it. I am assuming that it is a state requirement because of the plenary power they have over how they run their elections. My post was to correct the poster's conception that it was as black and white as "the electors' sworn statements were wrong therefore they lose." A sworn statement can be found to be factually wrong but not a violation based on a person's good faith beliefs. People regularly swear honestly to things that end up being wrong especially when it comes to law: your post proves this because you probably "honestly" stated "this is false".
Because those states were contested. There were cases regarding fraud and states like Pennsylvania specifically going against their own constitution. The alternate slates of electors were there in the off chance the argument was made in congress and they decided to pick the other slate or send both back until either they find a reasonable conclusion or they throw the electors all out and the vote goes to congress
I wanted to Trump to win in 2020 but I have to say this Mike Pence route of disputing the electors sounds really stupid. I think it's a bad legal theory but not a crime.
It’s not a bad legal theory, it’s already president in the law. It was done by none other than Thomas Jefferson lol
Its such a stupid theory that it was proven correct
Pisco isn’t a real lawyer so no need to invite him and ruin a perfectly good stream.
He is an attorney. However, he's a baby attorney which can sometimes be more dangerous. A lot of baby attorneys think they know the law but don't have the experience to understand the law or the legal system. Also given the current state of our legal education system, they are more ideologically driven and therefore will attempt to twist the law to give them the result they want instead of working to preserve a fair system.
At least he wouldn't be able to use his big brain Trump card of "where did you go to law school?"
I personally would like to see the two debate again because the first time was on a multi person panel.
I also really just want to see nick tear into pisco when he pushes the condescending tone and righteous indignation tone too far.
I still remember when he unloaded on that one dude that got him banned for some time lol
So according to Rekieta, impersonating an official is protected by the first amendment. Lol good luck on that
I listened to him rationalize that because my house was accessible by a public road, strange men had the right to enjoy my yard. In his defense, Nick was trying to excuse irrational behavior of his friends.
Thanks guys.
You guys did much better discussion with Nick than Destiny had. I get constant crap from Destiny's audience for defending you guys to them. But this conversation is my evidence.
Destiny is a political advocate, you guys are truth seekers. When I say that to Destiny's audience, I either get intense flame wars my way or claims that you can be BOTH a truth seeker and political advocate if the truth aligns with one political perspective. The idea of moral intuitions and Moral Foundations Theory is lost on them.
Thanks for always being truth seekers. I disagree with you guys often (not as much as you'd might think), but I always come back to your channel because I don't ever even get a WHIFF of bad faith on your guys' part. Destiny...sadly...I do sometimes.
Thanks for defending us with DGG. I'm not sure why so many of them hate us so much. Seems totally unfounded.
@@SitchAndAdamShowthey don't really but certain members of your audience are very annoying.
For example his claim Destiny has no interest in the truth despite him constantly changing his position as he finds new facts & information.
He is just as interested in truth as Sitch & Adam he's just less nice about it which sometimes is required.
Praise Blunt Fly!
The LATE is contagious...
Every time i think "maybe im just a stupid idiot who doesnt get nicks lawyer words, he does something so braindead/bad faith as pretending not to know the purpose of taking a hypothetical to hyperbolic extremes to make a point.
No one said it was actually written on crayon, but without certification whats the difference?
Libertarian Brainrot
Great question Sitch. I like Nick, but he dodged your excellently formed question 50:00
What the!? Secret stream?! Sneaky bastards lol
A good talk where theres no loser or anyone trying to force the other to answer, destiny chat in suicide watch
You mean no one holding someone accountable to their own words? Destiny making someone address their own contradictions or holes in their argument is literally just how you debate. Glossing over holes in Nicks argument would be called sucking his cøçk
Nicks argument seems very semantic
Shocking that semantics are central to legal reasoning... Mind-blowing stuff...
That's why I cannot stand lawyers, they're always technically right from a certain point of view.
@lukew6725 that's how law works. They're literally arguing over legal theory....
Wormy did January 6th
If only it would have went far smoother
I was going to say something here, but considering how much I got censored during the stream I'll assume that I would be censored here also.
Just an FYI, it’s YT not them. Yes, it’s unbelievably frustrating. I personally have my own full arguments to make but it ALWAYS gets censored in the comments.
“Top chat” only shows up in the video.
@@SitchAndAdamShow Unsure why you boys don't switch what's shown on the screen from top chat to live chat.
@@SitchAndAdamShow Some of my comments showed up and some didn't 🤷♂️
In OBS it pulls the stream from the chat URL. There is no option to switch it from the default "top chat".
Any nfl teams need a good punter…? Rekieta is your man
Two big ways Nick lost me.
1) with his 'the slate doesn't have to be signed by the legislator, but obviously if it was written in crayon that doesn't count' - pure post hoc reasoning so that these alternate slates fit exactly his ill defined requirements.
2) saying 'can pence even be defrauded if he doesn't rely on the slates?' but then 'pence has an actual role to play, it's not just ceremonial, but he can't just do anything he wants' - again which is it? If he can just do anything they yes he can be relying on the slates. Same as if it's purely ceremonial and has no power. But if he does have powers to read the certificates, but not free reign to do anything... Then yes, there can be fraud.
17:20 Nick ignores a hypothetical which includes all of his claimed criteria for fraud to go on a tangent about the intent of the law around the VPs role in elector stuff.
This is what he did in his convo with Destiny, then he gaslit him as if he was the one doing debate perversion.
Not sure you saw the same stream that I did. He answered by saying it depends on the role of the VP. If its cermonial then he can't do that in the first place. If its a role of authority then he MIGHT and I stress MIGHT be able to invalidate the electors. However, the hypothetical relies on knowing what is in Pence's mind so...
Well if your turning in a statement that you will eventually become the legitimate state electors your not actually turning in a slate of electors.
48:45 is where Nick's whole shtick breaks down because his argument comes down to "I dunno, I'm just saying anything is legally possible". What a great lawyer
That's because there are no clear legal boundaries here.
What are you even talking about? He's having fun with legal theory. It sounds like you have a preexisting issue with him and are looking for something to whine about. Someone spitballing hypothetical at 2am has no bearing on their profession.
@@dayman0603 A lot of law is theroy until there is court and argument to create precedent or alternate interpretation. So...um yeah.
"Your honour I was merely spitballing"
@@TimbahOnToast They were not on a court...
Pisco in shambles
At least two of the panel were sober.
Rekieta doesn't drink anymore
@@mr8ty8
X
Ironic you say that since Adam is stoned every episode, not that I care , just thought it was funny you being so petty
@@mr8ty8he quit the sauce?
@@Texasp12 yes! Yes he did.
Note that the booze isn't in the background anymore
the weakest part of rekietas argument really does feel like he glosses over the 60+ court cases when arguing what someone should do when challenging an election. the problem was trump exhausted the legal means at his disposal and went with eastmans memo
You are making the assumption that 60 court cases has some merit toward exhausting efforts. Basically buying the media narrative. Its just like saying 97% of scientists agree....that's not how it works.
Not all 60 cases were brought by Trump, as Nick pointed out some were really bonehead ones by Sidney Powell etc. Also They had less than 2 months to try to try to acquire and sift through any or all evidence of election fraud in multiple states with different situations and different laws in those different states and try to put together the most coherent legal challenges they could... all in less than 2 months. Nick also made a good point in that say youre a judge in Georgia, do you really want to be the judge flung into the national spotlight because you allowed a case to be heard that is now going to delay/affect an election that was already essentially all but decided for the first time in the history of the country in this way?
And now youre the judge that did that, and 50% of the country hates you immediately, probably getting death threats, probably getting pressured in all sorts of other ways, youre life will never be the same again etc etc. Theres all sorts of these factors too outside the actual legal grounds themselves. What if the judges honestly didnt know what a case being allowed would even mean, what if they thought it wouldnt matter so they might as well just deny it them, but they are wrong or they just dont know either how a case like this would work.
I think if im Trump or on his legal team, and I truly believe the election was fradulent in multiple states in an egregious faction and there was evidence that would sway the electoral college count back to my favor legitimately I would also throw every possible avenue at the wall in a relatively novel situation like this and even then only having 2 months probably felt like they had zero time to actually figure this out properly...
I like Rikieta's approach but not necessarily his conclusions, and sometimes he gets it in his mind to be a edge lord.
Nick ‘everyone should have nukes’ Rekieta, I don’t think it will go well
50:05 Nick can’t state his position because it prevents him from using his circular logic to entertain himself in these debates
Sic "I dont know how to read the 12th amendment, so Im just going to insult Rekieta instead."
@@annatardlordofderps9181 In these conversations, Nick refuses to put forward an opinion of how things should go either legally or morally. When the people he debates put forward an opinion, he either says “maybe”, or he appeals to the lack of a process through which to challenge the votes to condone the actions. He puts himself in the position of judging others arguments, and smirks while people twist themselves into knots trying to convince him of their position. The people he debates aren’t realizing that he doesn’t care about their positions, he is just messing with them
@@SlatekingNo, he just essentially said I don't know. This is a sufficient answer and is better than a binary yes or no because in either scenario he'd be lying. You don't like it because it's not the answer you want.
Ah yes the once respected law tuber who is speed running into lolcowdom makes an appearance.
what happend? I didnt keep up with him for some time
@@Keenskopf making an absolute fool of himself drunk on his own streams, and in general, getting catfished by "mandy" who is really a dude, defending some fairly dubious people in weird Internet beefs, speculation about him being separated from his wife and family. Just a general slide into degenerate alcoholism.
@Keenskopf Apparently, I can't post what's been going on. Which is odd because I didn't use any profanity and didn't say anything there isn't video of. I guess you'll have to find out on your own lol
@@mawakini9585 Can't even give us a hint? Cool...
@@bigkingspeakerdwestemperor5068 apparently not lol. I've tried twice. It's pretty easy to find though.
Is rekeita an anarco libertarian? This electors argument is wild
He has stated he'd unalive all lawyers if he could, that even means him.
@@Texasp12 Which is honestly the only reasonable opinion to have about any lawyer, even ones that you usually like. 100 lawyers at the bottom of a lake, and all that.
Pretty much
My ultimate dream for the upcoming election is that Trump has a great running mate, gets elected, then gets impeached and booted from office quickly afterwards. No Trump, No Biden. Good times.
LMFAO or Trump gets elected, finally exposes all of the documents that show that the 2020 election was a sham, Obama indeed spied on his 2016 campaign, there were a bunch of illegal shenanigans between Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and a DNC, and master rest happen as a watershed moment for the country as people start to realize that Trump with being persecuted because he knew where all the dead bodies were
impeached for what?
If the roles were reversed, I have absolutely zero faith that Rekieta would be bending over backwards to defend Kamala's right to do what he's saying Mike Pence might've been allowed to do. He's obviously letting his elephant guide him. And to be honest, I'm disappointed that the boys didn't bring up this evidence of bad faith to him.
Pisco was very active in the chat - host a debate between them both next time! Now that's something I'd love to see.
Harris can't do this congress amended this clause
@@ryanredieske8402and, as Nick and others have pointed out, if the answer was so clear why did they need to change the law to clarify it
@@thoughtheretic
Do you believe its cool that a president candidate can be taken off the ballot for insurrection without a conviction?
You're already missing his stance on the matter, then if that's what you believe.
Nick would definitely be acting the same way if the roles were reversed. Mainly due to how taboo it is to question the legitimacy election these days.
If you're going to reference moral theory please understand it. The rider does not tell the elephant where to go. He just keeps it from rampaging.
Why is he dying on this hill. It's obviously fraud
While I understand his point about it not being fraud, I would agree that there was clearly an attempt at fraud.
@lukew6725 I feel like his point doesn't hold weight. There is a process to do this, and it was in the courts. And they lost. Trump also had his district attorney look into it, and they didn't find anything.
I think rekeita is just saying all this because of his anti democrats.
@@hpinales18 No, they never said there wasn't fraud just not a level to change the election. There is some level of fraud in every election, it's just bound to happen. What the democrats did was setup a perfect storm with universal mail in ballots, extending late voting, and other measures to give themselves an advantage. It wasn't against the law just they played their hand and the media helped them at well even Times put out that big piece about the consorted effort to make sure Trump lost.
why are you so assertive?
1:23:06 -- There are legal ways to challenge it - which they did, lost (half the time bc they had no evidence). Decided they weren’t happy with that outcome bc that meant the candidate they wanted didn’t win so instead of protesting it if they still had a problem or looking for additional evidence, they created fake documents they were trying to pass off as being real (whether anyone believed them or not). This is just frustratingly ridiculous and feels like gaslighting by Nick.
Because it is pretty much
@@SomeDumbSpider - there’s a quote that Trump said in the legal docs “Just say it’s corruption and I’ll handle the rest”. Also based on the other evidence including the emails between VP and Eastman, it shows what the intentions were…
They also were trying to have judges sign additional documents but the judges said no. Also, why would they try to get into the active elector meeting if it wasn’t to try and fool anyone?
@@SomeDumbSpider - Honestly, I wish I could provide it but my comments keep getting hidden when I do. It’s in the case file documents. Do control F search to make it easier to find.
@@HostileTakeover555 steelman, if you were a staunch Trump supporter (in office at the time) and had watched all and sundry crucify the man for four years, and then witnessed the one side push no voter ID, open borders, and flooding empty ballots while wink winking to "vote often" ..... what would you think?
This is exactly right. The level of cope we are seeing relies on ignoring all the opportunities that trump was given to make his case and how poor their cases were in court
Yea, nick is just blantaly lying about the law here. Dude is a joke.
How so?
@libertariansasquatch the state legislature does not have full authority to do what it wants with electors. One of the biggest SCOTUS cases of last year, Moore v. Harper, makes clear that a legislature cannot just change electors willy nilly. Now, either Rekita isn't up to date on the biggest con law cases of the last year, or, what is more likely, he's purposefully misleading Sitch to act like his argument is on firm ground. His entire position crumbles like a house of cards if you actually follow constitutional law.
@libertariansasquatch all im seeing is about redistribution of districts. Mind lay manning it out?
@@jmattia24But if that was only established last year how would that apply to the 2020 election?
@@lukew6725 Exactly