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

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Trump could come out and say he’s not going to be sworn in on the 4th

he could come out and tell people to stay home and don’t do anything tomorrow, at the Capitol or anywhere else

he could say that he won’t be president again until he wins in 2024, stop thinking that he will before then and stop trying to do anything to make that happen

but he won’t

I’d argue he won’t because he can’t
He just does not have that gear

 

[MT15]

Yep, it’s not in his self-interest so he probably won’t. Unless somebody convinces him otherwise.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes, present. And I don't see how it confuses things. It is in the very definition of the word in the dictionary.

Gender and sex are not the same per the APA definition of gender.

 

[SystemShock]

Gender and sex are not the same per the APA definition of gender.

Good for the APA, I guess? Is the APA against calling ends of extension cords male and female?

I really don't see why this is a problem for you.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Good for the APA, I guess? Is the APA against calling ends of extension cords male and female?

I really don't see why this is a problem for you.

You incorrectly tied gender to biological sex. You've picked an odd hill for sure.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I was watching a little bit of the hearings

I don't want it to sound like those in charge of intelligence and security are being scapegoated or thrown under the bus because there were/are definitely very serious intelligence and security issues and questions that need to be addressed

But, is everyone involved in WHY that huge crowd was there to begin with and WHY they were so angry and WHY they thought the election was rigged and stolen going to end up getting a pass?

 

[DaveXA]

I was watching a little bit of the hearings

While there were definitely serious intelligence and security issues and questions that need to be addressed

Is everyone involved in WHY that huge crowd was there to begin with and why they were so angry and why they thought the election was rigged and stolen going to end up getting a pass?

Ultimately...yes.

 

[SystemShock]

You incorrectly tied gender to biological sex. You've picked an odd hill for sure.

I didn't pick an "odd hill". I picked one of the definitions of the word from the dictionary. Anyone who is older than millenial will tell you gender traditionally means sex.

Enough of this. The woke (or whatever the kids call it today ) nitpicking nonesense gets tiresome.

 

[brandon]

Anyone who is older than millenial will tell you gender traditionally means sex.

Enough of this. The woke (or whatever the kids call it today ) nitpicking nonesense gets tiresome.

Old people get tired more easily. Maybe you should sit down for awhile, grandpa.

 

[zztop]

(anyone want to speculate why there was a 3hr delay?)

Pentagon officials did not answer a request to deploy troops during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 for more than three hours, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard testified Wednesday.

Maj. Gen. William Walker said the head of the Capitol Police asked for help during the insurrection, and that senior Pentagon officials did not approve deploying the National Guard until three hours and 19 minutes later.

“At 1:49 p.m. I received a frantic call from then-Chief of U.S. Capitol Police, Steven Sund, where he informed me that the security perimeter at the Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters,” Walker said during a Senate hearing. “Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency on Capitol Hill and requested the immediate assistance of as many Guardsmen as I could muster.”

Walker said he then went to Army leadership to ask for help.

“Immediately after the 1:49 p.m. call with Chief Sund, I alerted the Army Senior Leadership of the request,” Walker said. “The approval for Chief Sund’s request would eventually come from the Acting Secretary of Defense and be relayed to me by Army Senior Leaders at 5:08 p.m. — three hours and 19 minutes later.”

 

[DaveXA]

(anyone want to speculate why there was a 3hr delay?)

Pentagon officials did not answer a request to deploy troops during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 for more than three hours, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard testified Wednesday.

Maj. Gen. William Walker said the head of the Capitol Police asked for help during the insurrection, and that senior Pentagon officials did not approve deploying the National Guard until three hours and 19 minutes later.

“At 1:49 p.m. I received a frantic call from then-Chief of U.S. Capitol Police, Steven Sund, where he informed me that the security perimeter at the Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters,” Walker said during a Senate hearing. “Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency on Capitol Hill and requested the immediate assistance of as many Guardsmen as I could muster.”

Walker said he then went to Army leadership to ask for help.

“Immediately after the 1:49 p.m. call with Chief Sund, I alerted the Army Senior Leadership of the request,” Walker said. “The approval for Chief Sund’s request would eventually come from the Acting Secretary of Defense and be relayed to me by Army Senior Leaders at 5:08 p.m. — three hours and 19 minutes later.”

Criminal.

 

[bdb13]

(anyone want to speculate why there was a 3hr delay?)

Sure.. Trump wanted to see how it was going to play out as is; to see how far are his terrorists could take it when they only had to deal with an overwhelmed Capitol police force.

That's pretty much the right answer because that's pretty much what happened and he is that forked up.

 

[DaveXA]

(anyone want to speculate why there was a 3hr delay?)

Pentagon officials did not answer a request to deploy troops during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 for more than three hours, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard testified Wednesday.

Maj. Gen. William Walker said the head of the Capitol Police asked for help during the insurrection, and that senior Pentagon officials did not approve deploying the National Guard until three hours and 19 minutes later.

“At 1:49 p.m. I received a frantic call from then-Chief of U.S. Capitol Police, Steven Sund, where he informed me that the security perimeter at the Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters,” Walker said during a Senate hearing. “Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency on Capitol Hill and requested the immediate assistance of as many Guardsmen as I could muster.”

Walker said he then went to Army leadership to ask for help.

“Immediately after the 1:49 p.m. call with Chief Sund, I alerted the Army Senior Leadership of the request,” Walker said. “The approval for Chief Sund’s request would eventually come from the Acting Secretary of Defense and be relayed to me by Army Senior Leaders at 5:08 p.m. — three hours and 19 minutes later.”

The real question here is who is responsible for the 3 hour delay? They have a lot of explaining to do.

Here's the question I'd ask. If a group of ISIS terrorists had breached Capitol security, how long would it take to get NG troops in to help? I'm 100% sure it wouldn't take 3 hours. Why did it take 3 hours on Jan 6th?

 

[FullMonte]

Yes, present. And I don't see how it confuses things. It is in the very definition of the word in the dictionary.

Can you clarify which dictionary you got that definition from?

Dictionary.com defines gender as "either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior:"
Merriam Webster defines gender as " the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"

Both seem to clearly indicate the gender refers to social and cultural norms, and not physical biology.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

The real question here is who is responsible for the 3 hour delay? They have a lot of explaining to do.

Here's the question I'd ask. If a group of ISIS terrorists had breached Capitol security, how long would it take to get NG troops in to help? I'm 100% sure it wouldn't take 3 hours. Why did it take 3 hours on Jan 6th?

It wouldn't even have to ISIS, if it was BLM, it would have been instant.

 

[FullMonte]

(anyone want to speculate why there was a 3hr delay?)

I think the more urgent question is....why, on Jan 5, one day before the attack on the Capitol, did the SecDef send out a memo to the DC National Guard commander telling him that he needed to contact SecDef for authorization to deploy his troops for a civil disorder situation...something he did not need prior to that memo.

 

[DaveXA]

I think the more urgent question is....why, on Jan 5, one day before the attack on the Capitol, did the SecDef send out a memo to the DC National Guard commander telling him that he needed to contact SecDef for authorization to deploy his troops for a civil disorder situation...something he did not need prior to that memo.

Not doubting you, but, source?

 

[insidejob]

And what the hell was Mike Flynn's brother doing anywhere near anything having to do with a possible security situation on the day that Mike Flynn called for martial law to be declared?

I remember seeing a short mention of this a couple of weeks ago but haven't heard anything at all since that mention.