Trump loyalists in Congress to challenge Electoral College results in Jan. 6 joint session (Update: Insurrectionists storm Congress)(And now what?) (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

I guess it's time to start a thread for this. We know that at least 140 members of Congress have pledged to join the objection. Under federal law, if at least one member of each house (HOR and Senate) objects, each house will adjourn the joint session for their own session (limited at two hours) to take up the objection. If both houses pass a resolution objecting to the EC result, further action can take place. If both houses do not (i.e. if one or neither passes a resolution), the objection is powerless and the college result is certified.

Clearly this is political theater as we know such a resolution will not pass the House, and there's good reason to think it wouldn't pass the Senate either (with or without the two senators from Georgia). The January 6 joint session is traditionally a ceremonial one. This one will not be.

Many traditional pillars of Republican support have condemned the plan as futile and damaging. Certainly the Trump loyalists don't care - and many are likely doing it for fundraising purposes or to carry weight with the fraction of their constituencies that think this is a good idea.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32717.pdf

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Was browsing YouTube and an old (makes me feel old to say it's old) movie from 1992 popped up in my head: Bob Roberts. If you haven't seen it, it is still relevant today... arguably more so than it was in 1992. In this clip (Jack Black's first movie role, I believe) you see the obvious similarities to the MAGA crowd (it's particularly frightening near the end of the movie but I won't spoil it). Amazing cast with Tim Robbins, Jack Black, Gore Vidal and Giancarlo Esposito.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I didn't know antifa has been planning this for years. I mean, they started fake Facebook pages for these people years ago pretending to be Trump supporters and just waited and waited and waited.. they even got all of their family and friends to buy into their fake Trump love.. lol

Protesting an election they already won - it’s a genius move when you think about it

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Yeah, isn't this possibly step 1 in him attempting to declare "martial law"?

I don’t want Harris, Pelosi or Schumer anywhere near the inauguration

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Was browsing YouTube and an old (makes me feel old to say it's old) movie from 1992 popped up in my head: Bob Roberts. If you haven't seen it, it is still relevant today... arguably more so than it was in 1992. In this clip (Jack Black's first movie role, I believe) you see the obvious similarities to the MAGA crowd (it's particularly frightening near the end of the movie but I won't spoil it). Amazing cast with Tim Robbins, Jack Black, Gore Vidal and Giancarlo Esposito.

It’s a brilliant movie (I saw it in the theatres)

 

[Incumbent]

Whether too much is being made of it, Senator Schatz and Rep Swallwell have spoken up to say Sergeant at Arms in both chambers gave the instruction to not post to social media and to not give away location details, which makes sense. Boebert’s Pelosi tweet is time-stamped at 1:18.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Incumbent]

Republicans could use that (alleged) admission to do the right thing and take the impeachment seriously.

How about we unify around justice and accountability?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

McCarthy is lying. He never said that. He wouldn't. He hasn't admitted any fault in 70+ years. He's not starting now. It's just not in his DNA.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

They'll just say FAKE NEWS...

 

[wardorican]

Whether too much is being made of it, Senator Schatz and Rep Swallwell have spoken up to say Sergeant at Arms in both chambers gave the instruction to not post to social media and to not give away location details, which makes sense. Boebert’s Pelosi tweet is time-stamped at 1:18.

Ok, I can buy that, but Democrats need to be careful here. There is an obvious moral high ground here, and they're trying to do a flying elbow on a piece of pop corn.

It's like almost every complaint Democrats have they dial it up to 11. They can't all be 11's.

 

[Incumbent]

Ok, I can buy that, but Democrats need to be careful here. There is an obvious moral high ground here, and they're trying to do a flying elbow on a piece of pop corn.

It's like almost every complaint Democrats have they dial it up to 11. They can't all be 11's.

I don't think calling attention to something necessarily amounts to that, and there's little possibility her tweeting during this will ever rise to a primary concern for most people. I do think think her actions should be included, along with those of others, in a thorough understanding of what happened, to determine who bears what measures of responsibility.

If it's true she ignored the instructions of the people tasked with chamber security under extraordinarily dangerous circumstances, that speaks to poor judgment, at the very least.

As to the risk of over-amplifying something, I think there is also a substantial risk in downplaying actions. We are, to a great extent, in this position as a nation because of the insistence many have shown to downplay events as they have happened and ignore alarm bells. I do have serious concerns about her motivations and ideological leanings, as well as other radical right members who are winning seats in congress.

 

[wardorican]

I don't think calling attention to something necessarily amounts to that, and there's little possibility her tweeting during this will ever rise to a primary concern for most people. I do think think her actions should be included, along with those of others, in a thorough understanding of what happened, to determine who bears what measures of responsibility.

If it's true she ignored the instructions of the people tasked with chamber security under extraordinarily dangerous circumstances, that speaks to poor judgment, at the very least.

As to the risk of over-amplifying something, I think there is also a substantial risk in downplaying actions. We are, to a great extent, in this position as a nation because of the insistence many have shown to downplay events as they have happened. I do have serious concerns about her motivations and ideological leanings, as well as other radical right members who are winning seats in congress.

It is Swalwell's last sentence that bothers me. The rest, seemed reasonable. A 3-5, not an 11.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Ok, I can buy that, but Democrats need to be careful here. There is an obvious moral high ground here, and they're trying to do a flying elbow on a piece of pop corn.

It's like almost every complaint Democrats have they dial it up to 11. They can't all be 11's.

Seemingly you’ve never taught in a very noisy class - everything needs to be at 11 regardless of importance

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Tha

McCarthy is lying. He never said that. He wouldn't. He hasn't admitted any fault in 70+ years. He's not starting now. It's just not in his DNA.

That was my thought. McCarthy is just saying this to try to get his own caucus to stop spreading lies, and to make Trump seem more reasonable and this was just a mistake and not treason.

 

[Incumbent]

It is Swalwell's last sentence that bothers me. The rest, seemed reasonable. A 3-5, not an 11.

Maybe, but I don't know that her messaging and persona can be distinguished from what is driving people to engage in violence against state and federal government. I know that politicians have long used strong language to define themselves and drive home campaign promises, but I'm a lot more at ease when somebody is "fighting the battle" to secure my healthcare than another who is waging war for my freedoms while she vows to carry her gun in violation of D.C. law, lest the substance of who she is crumbles away if there isn't a gun strapped to her hip.

From her campaign site:


PRO-FREEDOM, PRO-GUNS, PRO-CONSTITUTION, PRO-ENERGY, PRO-LIFE, PRO-COLORADO, PRO-AMERICA. HEADING TO CONGRESS TO DRAIN THE SWAMP, STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS, AND TELL ALL THE LEFT-WING LUNATICS WE DON’T WANT MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL, WE WANT OUR FREEDOM!

“We are in a battle
for the heart and soul
of our country.

With your support,
we will win this fight!”

 

[Dragon]

Maybe, but I don't know that her messaging and persona can be distinguished from what is driving people to engage in violence against state and federal government. I know that politicians have long used strong language to define themselves and drive home campaign promises, but I'm a lot more at ease when somebody is "fighting the battle" to secure my healthcare than another who is waging war for my freedoms while she vows to carry her gun in violation of D.C. law, lest the substance of who she is crumbles away if there isn't a gun strapped to her hip.

From her campaign site:


PRO-FREEDOM, PRO-GUNS, PRO-CONSTITUTION, PRO-ENERGY, PRO-LIFE, PRO-COLORADO, PRO-AMERICA. HEADING TO CONGRESS TO DRAIN THE SWAMP, STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS, AND TELL ALL THE LEFT-WING LUNATICS WE DON’T WANT MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL, WE WANT OUR FREEDOM!

“We are in a battle
for the heart and soul
of our country.

With your support,
we will win this fight!”

Don't forget her "This is our 1776" tweet earlier on that day

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Tha


That was my thought. McCarthy is just saying this to try to get his own caucus to stop spreading lies, and to make Trump seem more reasonable and this was just a mistake and not treason.

Trump just spoke to the media, took no responsibility, and pulled the "Antifa and BLM" false equivalency. He said his speech to the crowd has been "analyzed" and found to be perfect.

As I said, McCarthy is full of shirt.

 

[BayouSAINTJoe]

Don't forget her "This is our 1776" tweet earlier on that day

Exactly, WE can use context to come to a reasonable conclusion in determining her motives...but legally, I'm not sure if that is enough to build a case.