It's funny, in a non-comedic way, how the KJV Bible gets in the way of people who want to 'bend' the teachings to their point of view.
That's what many of my Catholic friends said right up until Joe, as VP, flipped traditional religous views he held well into his 60s, probably for political expediency.
Actually mine sits beside my easychair and is within arm's reach at this moment, King James Version of course, lol.
Of course it is, it just happens to be yours, not mine.

Trying to get back to the OP - have you read much of the report? Where do you, and others stand on this:
That will never happen of course, the President's team will assert 'privilege.'

Trump asked Pence to send delegate counts back to the State Legislatures, something some scholars believe he had the power/precedent to do given the actions of John Adams and T. Jefferson. VP Pence did not have the power to 'overturn' the election. He may however have had the power to question delegate counts as did John Adams and Thomas Jefferson before him since the issue has never been adjudicated:
"Thomas Jefferson Counts Himself into the Presidency"
David Fontana and Bruce Ackerman
George Washington University Law School, dfontana@law.gwu.edu
"These textual penumbras can be enlightened by precedents that have gone largely unnoticed for two centuries: the electoral vote disputes of 1796 and 1800. On these two occasions, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson found themselves in Al Gore’s position. As Vice-Presidents in the preceding administration, they were presiding over a vote count in which they were leading candidates, and in both instances, they used their power to make rulings that favored their own election as President of the United States. This Article will present the first in-depth treatment of these precedents,2 emphasizing the dramatic moment when Thomas Jefferson made a questionable ruling that enhanced his chances of becoming the next President of the United States, rather than John Adams or Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.
Adams’s decisions in 1797 were perfectly sensible but frame an analysis of Jefferson’s problematic conduct the next time around. Vermont had cast four electoral votes for Adams and his running mate Thomas Pinckney, but the legality of the state’s action had been publicly impugned and privately questioned by newspapers and politicians from both political parties."

and:

"When Adams opened the formal certificates from Vermont they seemed completely regular, containing no hint of legal deficiency. Despite their facial perfection, Adams provided members of Congress a formal opportunity to challenge Vermont’s four electoral votes before announcing that he had won the election by three votes over Jefferson. He declared himself President only after the Republicans remained silent.
Thomas Jefferson was remarkably aggressive as President of the Senate. Georgia’s certificate—granting four electoral votes to Jefferson and four electoral votes to Aaron Burr—was constitutionally defective on its face, a deficiency that was announced on the floor of Congress and reported by leading newspapers of the day.3
To resolve all doubts, we have located Georgia’s certificate in the National Archives, and it does indeed reveal striking constitutional irregularities. Nevertheless, and in contrast to Adams, Jefferson failed to pause before counting Georgia’s four electoral votes into the Republican column, declaring the final vote as if nothing were amiss.
This ruling had serious consequences. With the Georgia votes included, the official tally was Jefferson seventy-three, Burr seventy-three, Adams sixty-five, Charles C. Pinckney sixty-four, and John Jay one. To resolve this tie, the two leading candidates went to their famous runoff in the House, which was only resolved in Jefferson’s favor on the thirty-sixth ballot. Had Georgia’s ballot been excluded, the vote count for Jefferson and for Burr sinks to sixty-nine each, and this would have made a big difference under the electoral ground rules framed in Philadelphia.
As we will explain,4 these rules would have admitted all five candidates into a runoff in the House. Including Adams, Pinckney, and Jay in the runoff would have dealt a serious blow to Jefferson’s prospects."

That is a pretty interesting link. From that link:
"The plan would perform a swift takeover of the entire executive branch under a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory — a theory proposing the president of the United States has absolute power over the executive branch — upon inauguration.[6]"
The 'unitary executive theory' was bolstered by the very first (s)UPREME COURT decision that established the Judicial branch as an 'equal' to the Executive and Legistrative branches. An 'equivalence' abhorent by the way, to T. Jefferson and several other people of that era.
The position of President is invested with virtually unlimited power to make 'political' decisions and the 'decision' to order his VP to question delegates is a 'political' question as far as I can tell.
"By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers; in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performahce of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who as by his authority and in conformity with his orders.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep005/usrep005137/usrep005137.pdf"

The special prosecutors' report which was heard and tested in court... and failed? Is that the one you're referring to?
Let's be honest here. Your entire position is actually founded upon a single issue, isn't it?

And that is: Denying critical health care to a vulnerable class of society, by keeping the Supreme Court stacked with "Conservatives" who will decide how doctors should do their jobs... Am I right?

As far as I know I haven't menioned 'health care' at all. What are you talking about?

What are you talking about/

[QUOTE=rkelsen;6484508]The special prosecutors' report which was heard and tested in ocourt... and failed? What court?

Regarding Pence's position, or at least the outcome that tested the validity of his choice:

Every single intense scrutiny examination of the 2020 voting record in every state, even those not only by Republicans but by Republicans appointed by Trump or his people, agreed that Biden won the 2020 election by ~6 million popular votes and 74 electoral votes if I read the results right. Pence was asked by Trump "to find me the votes I need to win". Since it was already known they didn't exist, Pence was being asked to lie and fabricate them. He may have had moments of regret since but I'm betting (and hoping) History records he did not cave and instead stood on principle... pretty heroic actually. That must've been one helluva sleepless night or 3. Trump may not be the Gestapo giving Sophie that horrific choice but it ain't far off.

That site reads like Orwellian fiction. That project basically eliminates a century of progress.

"Project Director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, said in September 2023 that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."

Sounds a lot like this...

If Trump is elected and that plan is actually implemented and succeeds, I'd predict many of your country's best and brightest will leave. Refugees from an oppressive US government... Ronald Reagan would be turning in his grave.
Expected response. In the case that your question is genuine:

Perhaps you don't consider abortion to be critical health care. Perhaps you don't consider the patients requiring that critical health care to be vulnerable members of society.

Well it is, and they are.

I've mentioned or discussed my position on abortion in at least 5 other threads, one as far back as 2009, and a couple of them in which you have posted. Be glad to revisit the issue with you there.

Abortion, obviously. Though that's a weirdly convoluted way of describing it.

I was talking about this part of the quote hazel - "The special prosecutors' report which was heard and tested in court... and failed? Is that the one you're referring to?"
Obviously I know what abortion is.

Yes, your position on abortion is well known. The question is whether that issue alone forms the basis for your support of Trump, because it certainly seems that way.

Has anyone seen what today's grift is? Or did Donny have a day off today? The curiosity is killing me.

Then the only reason for your continuous mention of it is to derail this thread further than it already is, something I admit to have been guilty of myself.
Be happy to discuss it in one of the threads I mentioned above. Do you have anything to say about the Special Prosecutor's report? Preferably an aspect of it that we haven't already discussed.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have purposely refrained from this thread for quite some time. I now suggest that you all pause and reconsider where it has "lately gone," and then reconsider what to do with it next. Maybe, just let it die. (Unless you want another "mega-thread?")

Funny, I don't see this thread derailing, just running out of gas re: the original topic because there really isn't much to say in comparing Trump's versus Biden's transgressions. They both messed up but Trump tried to deny and hide it and Biden complied and turned the documents over. There is a difference even if all you can see or admit to is degree. Anyone who sees them as equivalent, let alone with Biden as somehow worse in this area, in my view and I think objectively, is just spin-doctoring for the party line.