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

 

[Eeyore]

Speaking of not paying... Womp womp...

Trump Instructs Staff Not To Pay Giuliani's Legal Fees Incurred Helping Him Try To Overturn Election: Report

Outgoing President Donald Trump is reluctant to pay his longtime friend and personal attorney Rudy Giuliani for his legal services incurred while traveling on the president’s behalf to challenge election results in key states — and has instructed staff not to approve the fees, The Washington...

theguardiansofdemocracy.com

That's beautiful

 

[Taurus]

Speaking of not paying... Womp womp...

Trump Instructs Staff Not To Pay Giuliani's Legal Fees Incurred Helping Him Try To Overturn Election: Report

Outgoing President Donald Trump is reluctant to pay his longtime friend and personal attorney Rudy Giuliani for his legal services incurred while traveling on the president’s behalf to challenge election results in key states — and has instructed staff not to approve the fees, The Washington...

theguardiansofdemocracy.com

I guess we'll find out what kind of 'insurance' Rudy actually has.

 

[Roofgardener]

Hmm... as reported by the Washington Post.

I can't access their website directly due to its paywall. However, I wonder what corroboration this story has ? Both WaPo and the New York Times have produced hundreds of stories critical of Trump since his election (and before), all based on unattributed sources. In some cases, I have had my doubts whether these sources actually existed ?

 

[RobF]

Hmm... as reported by the Washington Post.

I can't access their website directly due to its paywall. However, I wonder what corroboration this story has ? Both WaPo and the New York Times have produced hundreds of stories critical of Trump since his election (and before), all based on unattributed sources. In some cases, I have had my doubts whether these sources actually existed ?

Many of the Washington Post and NYT's stories critical of Trump have named sources of course. I don't think you meant to say they were all based on unattributed ones.

That aside, both of those newspapers will certainly be using real sources, with editorial processes in places to ensure that's the case (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/reader-center/how-the-times-uses-anonymous-sources.html).

I'm not sure why you would have doubts to be honest. There clearly exist many people willing to talk about Trump's administration anonymously, and some of them have even been subsequently named (e.g. Miles Taylor). So given that real sources are naturally going to be available, and that not using real sources goes completely against the integrity of journalism and would be not be beneficial to either of those institutions to put it mildly, they're obviously going to be real sources. Doubt, here, requires thinking it's realistic that those newspapers might be willing to risk their continued existence completely unnecessarily. So, no.

It is, of course, possible that the sources aren't being entirely honest, or are providing their own spin. Usually reputable journals will attempt to verify information from multiple sources accordingly, but that context should still be borne in mind.

But in this instance, Trump being mad at Giuliani's complete lack of success for him legally and being reluctant to pay him accordingly is entirely consistent with reality and everything we know about Trump.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This is thoughtful. What’s your opinion on the female protestor that was shot? Or Capitol police letting Reps skip metal detectors?

As far as Ashli Babbitt is concerned, I'm always saddened when someone loses a life. This appears to be a legally justifiably shoot, however, when I'm being analytical I try to look at things in terms of optimal results. The best case scenario in something like this, is people protest, no property is damaged, no one is hurt, progress towards a better society is made. That obviously rarely happens, and so I look for failure points that led to a sub-optimal result to see if there are reasonable steps that could be made in the future to have a better outcome.

And I always look to things I can change rather than what other people should have done, since I can only control myself. In this case, I'm a third party observer, but I'm not part of the Trump movement and I am a taxpayer, so in this particular scenario, I am more closely aligned with the federal response than I am with the protestor so I tend to focus my thoughts on them. Besides, Ashli Babbitt is dead, there isn't much more she can learn from this, and people closely aligned to her can easily analyze that a failure scenario can mean their own death.

So, from a federal response, I would say the death of Ashli Babbitt is probably a sub-optimal result. I think it would have been far more ideal for the violent protestors/insurrectionists would be arrested without injury to anyone. The question though is where was the most appropriate failure point. I would say that the failure began much earlier by not having enough manpower to prevent Ashli and companions from getting to that point in the first place. As far as the plain clothes officers who shot her and do I think that was a good decision (I already said I thought it was legally justifiable)? I need more information - I believe they were defending people behind them, was that case? Could those people have been evacuated? Was there state secrets being protected? Basically comes down to, could the officer have safely protected people and any national security interests without killing Ashli? Based on the information I have, there were some Representatives and staffers very close by that needed protection, I will assume they could not be evacuated any further than they already were, in which case I think shooting Ashli was probably the correct decision to be made.

I would look at seeing if there could be a better evacuation plan so that an officer is not placed in that situation. And of course figure out why we did not have enough man power to prevent people getting to that point in the first place.

As far as the Republicans refusing to go through the metal detectors. I think the Speaker and guards found the best result within their power. Fine them a significant amount for each violation. I view the Republicans as "protesting" the metal detectors. Again I think they're being stupid about it, but I do think what they are doing is more along the lines of a protest than an attempt to commit a violent act. In that scenario, we know exactly who they are, where they live and how they are paid, so fines and penalties along that line are an appropriate punishment for that kind of protest. If it's important to them, they can continue their protest and pay the penalty.

 

[Roofgardener]

Many of the Washington Post and NYT's stories critical of Trump have named sources of course. I don't think you meant to say they were all based on unattributed ones.

Sorry; you are correct. My bad.

That aside, both of those newspapers will certainly be using real sources, with editorial processes in places to ensure that's the case (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/reader-center/how-the-times-uses-anonymous-sources.html).

I'm not sure why you would have doubts to be honest.

I'm trying to remember what made me suspicious. I think it was that time that the NYT ran a story that Trump deliberately slandered the military on the trip to Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018 ? It was supposed to be sourced by TWO aides who where in the airplane with him. However, on investigation, it was found that there WHERE no 'aides' anywhere near him at the point when he was supposed to have made the comments. In addition, everyone who was reported (by the 'sources') to have been in the room when the alledged comments where made, deny that any such conversation ever happened. That makes me DEEPLY suspicious.

It is, of course, possible that the sources aren't being entirely honest, or are providing their own spin. Usually reputable journals will attempt to verify information from multiple sources accordingly, but that context should still be borne in mind.

But in this instance, Trump being mad at Giuliani's complete lack of success for him legally and being reluctant to pay him accordingly is entirely consistent with reality and everything we know about Trump.

There is a danger there. What if 'everything you know about Trump' is partially informed by exactly these dubious sources ? You open up the possibility of "argumentum ad populum" ?


Be that as it may; thus far I've not been able to find ANY independent verification of this story yet. Lots of newspapers have repeated it, but they ALL cite the WaPo as their source.

 

[superchuck500]

Seriously what is wrong with people.

 

[The moose]

Hmm... as reported by the Washington Post.

I can't access their website directly due to its paywall. However, I wonder what corroboration this story has ? Both WaPo and the New York Times have produced hundreds of stories critical of Trump since his election (and before), all based on unattributed sources. In some cases, I have had my doubts whether these sources actually existed ?

Why is that?

This one kinda chaps my backside you bring up two of the most respected news papers in the history of news papers.

What is the reasoning? The nyt was started in the 1850s if they were so evil and pushing crap it would have been exposed and they would not have existed for what 170 years. The washington post has been around for just about as long.

Both allow opinion pieces from both conservative and liberal writers.

Really just give me your reasoning.

Because some gass bag say fake news doesn't make it so.

I suggest you actually read them and form your own opinion. Like all things. Read and form your own opinion.

I have read the nyt ever since I use to real my grandfather's copy and have had a subscription my entire adult life.

So please explain how you come to your conclusions.

are you saying anonymous sources are bad?

Because without them watergate never happens. Lots of investigated stories don't get uncovered fully.

Please explain

 

[superchuck500]

Why is that?

This one kinda chaps my backside you bring up two of the most respected news papers in the history of news papers.

What is the reasoning? The nyt was started in the 1850s if they were so evil and pushing crap it would have been exposed and they would not have existed for what 170 years. The washington post has been around for just about as long.

Both allow opinion pieces from both conservative and liberal writers.

Really just give me your reasoning.

Because some gass bag say fake news doesn't make it so.

I suggest you actually read them and form your own opinion. Like all things. Read and form your own opinion.

I have read the nyt ever since I use to real my grandfather's copy and have had a subscription my entire adult life.

So please explain how you come to your conclusions.

are you saying anonymous sources are bad?

Because without them watergate never happens. Lots of investigated stories don't get uncovered fully.

Please explain

Is he talking about the story about Trump not paying Giuliani?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Seriously what is wrong with people.

Thats funny, her mom was the woman who was punched in the face by an officer during an altercation with the police. Her mom didn't want her going to BLM protests because they get violent.. She said she doesn't believe her mom was in the group that breached the capitol.

The look on her face is like "how could they punch an innocent person like me for attacking a police officer?"..

 

[RobF]

I'm trying to remember what made me suspicious. I think it was that time that the NYT ran a story that Trump deliberately slandered the military on the trip to Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018 ? It was supposed to be sourced by TWO aides who where in the airplane with him. However, on investigation, it was found that there WHERE no 'aides' anywhere near him at the point when he was supposed to have made the comments. In addition, everyone who was reported (by the 'sources') to have been in the room when the alledged comments where made, deny that any such conversation ever happened. That makes me DEEPLY suspicious.

We had a whole thread about that here: https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...n-of-disrespecting-military-casualties.87939/

But essentially multiple different reports from different organisations (including the national security correspondent for Fox News) confirmed the nature of the accounts.

It is, of course, reasonable to question anonymous accounts, which may or may not be fully accurate (and sometimes that's inherent: if an anonymous source's accurate comprehensive account would identify them, they naturally can't provide an entirely accurately and comprehensive account while still remaining anonymous). That, however, does not in itself mean that such accounts aren't true.

You don't, of course, have to reach a definitive conclusion about the accuracy of such accounts. "I don't know whether that's entirely true" is often a valid stance to hold. But to jump to the conclusion that the sources themselves aren't real isn't supported by reason, let alone evidence.

There is a danger there. What if 'everything you know about Trump' is partially informed by exactly these dubious sources ? You open up the possibility of "argumentum ad populum" ?

No. There is no shortage of named sources about Trump, including Trump himself, that inform us about him. Anonymous - which does not mean not trustworthy in and of itself - sources are complementary to those. In this specific instance, for example, people believe Trump has a habit of not paying people, because Trump has a long and well documented history of not paying his bills.

Donald Trump’s Business Plan Left a Trail of Unpaid Bills

Hardball tactics from the presumptive Republican nominee’s real-estate career had some suppliers claiming he shortchanged them.

www.wsj.com

As Trump campaign challenges election results, El Paso has a different question: Where is our money?

El Paso is one of several Texas cities facing budget shortfalls because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected the border area. The president’s team still owes the city a 2-year-old debt of more than half a million dollars.

www.texastribune.org

For just a couple of examples. There's no dependence on anonymous sources or popular opinion there. It's well documented history and current activity.

Be that as it may; thus far I've not been able to find ANY independent verification of this story yet. Lots of newspapers have repeated it, but they ALL cite the WaPo as their source.

Uh huh. Like I said, thinking, "I don't know whether this is true or not," is valid, although as I've just shown, it's entirely consistent with things we do indeed know about Trump. "I doubt the existence of the sources," no, not so much.

 

[Roofgardener]

We had a whole thread about that here: https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...n-of-disrespecting-military-casualties.87939/

But essentially multiple different reports from different organisations (including the national security correspondent for Fox News) confirmed the nature of the accounts.

It is, of course, reasonable to question anonymous accounts, which may or may not be fully accurate (and sometimes that's inherent: if an anonymous source's accurate comprehensive account would identify them, they naturally can't provide an entirely accurately and comprehensive account while still remaining anonymous). That, however, does not in itself mean that such accounts aren't true.

You don't, of course, have to reach a definitive conclusion about the accuracy of such accounts. "I don't know whether that's entirely true" is often a valid stance to hold. But to jump to the conclusion that the sources themselves aren't real isn't supported by reason, let alone evidence.


No. There is no shortage of named sources about Trump, including Trump himself, that inform us about him. Anonymous - which does not mean not trustworthy in and of itself - sources are complementary to those. In this specific instance, for example, people believe Trump has a habit of not paying people, because Trump has a long and well documented history of not paying his bills.

Donald Trump’s Business Plan Left a Trail of Unpaid Bills

Hardball tactics from the presumptive Republican nominee’s real-estate career had some suppliers claiming he shortchanged them.

www.wsj.com

As Trump campaign challenges election results, El Paso has a different question: Where is our money?

El Paso is one of several Texas cities facing budget shortfalls because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected the border area. The president’s team still owes the city a 2-year-old debt of more than half a million dollars.

www.texastribune.org

For just a couple of examples. There's no dependence on anonymous sources or popular opinion there. It's well documented history and current activity.


Uh huh. Like I said, thinking, "I don't know whether this is true or not," is valid, although as I've just shown, it's entirely consistent with things we do indeed know about Trump. "I doubt the existence of the sources," no, not so much.

Oooh right.. that is not what I'd heard. I'll look into this and get back to you.

 

[wardorican]

Oooh right.. that is not what I'd heard. I'll look into this and get back to you.

But you've read hundreds of articles proving your point?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I'm always amazed by the "Maybe Trump isn't that bad and you're all just being duped by made-up sources" argument.

For starters, the idea that every media organization out there is just making up sources because they dislike Trump sooo much shows how the far-right mind works. This is exactly what their information sources do, make things up out of whole cloth. So they assume other information sources must do the same because that's how this works, right?

What is even more baffling (trying to be nice here) is that they pretend we know nothing about Trump. We don't have a decades-long history of racism, sexism, fraud, and corruption that serves as a character witness and that we can apply as a sniff test to his actions and reports on him today. We haven't heard him, out of his own mouth, mock the sacrifice and service of John McCain and attack a Gold Star family lending credence to the idea that he might speak disgustingly of service members in private. We haven't seen his "greed is good" attitude and selfishness toward any and everyone around him that might lend credence to the idea that he thinks sacrifice is for suckers.

Donald Trump is not some unknown figure that just appeared on the scene in 2016 that none of us knew anything about. He's been a disgusting human being for his entire existence. So when stories come out without named sources you have to filter it through what we know about him for a FACT. It has to be filtered through what we have seen him say and post personally. Opinions of him are locked in because there is so much well-documented history. Either you find that history OK or you don't, but that's not going to change and it isn't because people are duped. It's just a values question on what is more important to you because we absolutely know with no question what Trump's values are.

 

[The moose]

Is he talking about the story about Trump not paying Giuliani?

Yep he seems to believe the tax cheating non bill paying guy until he gets sued rather than a un named source.

It is all kinda crazy to me

The instant fake news is nonsense.

 

[zztop]

• Nicholas Ochs and a man who identified himself as "Dick NeCarlo" were pictured next to the words "murder the media" scrawled on a door at the US Capitol during the January 6 insurrection.
• Ochs — the leader of the Hawaii Proud Boys — and NeCarlo told the Los Angeles Times they were there as citizen journalists for an outlet named Murder the Media.
• "What I did was journalism," NeCarlo told the paper.

 

[wardorican]

Thanks Daily show.

 

[porculator]

• Nicholas Ochs and a man who identified himself as "Dick NeCarlo" were pictured next to the words "murder the media" scrawled on a door at the US Capitol during the January 6 insurrection.
• Ochs — the leader of the Hawaii Proud Boys — and NeCarlo told the Los Angeles Times they were there as citizen journalists for an outlet named Murder the Media.
• "What I did was journalism," NeCarlo told the paper.

It seems like the brilliant legal minds of the alt-right got together and decided that "journalism" was going to be their get out of jail free card. The idiot West Virginia legislator used the same defense (to no avail of course)