Trump loyalists in Congress to challenge Electoral College results in Jan. 6 joint session (Update: Insurrectionists storm Congress)(And now what?) (4 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

 

[bird]

”Attack on our democratic process” is not completely accurate. Rather it can be more accurately described as trying to delegitimize the concept of democracy entirely.

 

[MT15]

ETA: I think implication is maybe too strong after reading more about it. See post below.

Edit 2: Implication is definitely too strong a word, especially keeping in mind she’s looney.

 

[MT15]

She admitted the plan on Jan 6 was to just DELAY the counting of the electoral votes. They had a case they were counting on Alito to rule in their favor.

 

[MT15]

After the Joint Session resumed in the middle of the night and officially counted the Electoral Votes, Alito threw out the appeal later that day (moot?).

What would he have done if the count hadn’t already happened? We may never know. But Justice Thomas’ wife was deeply involved in the planning for that rally on Jan 6. It makes the court look bad, IMO. They are too politically involved.

 

[DaveXA]

After the Joint Session resumed in the middle of the night and officially counted the Electoral Votes, Alito threw out the appeal later that day (moot?).

What would he have done if the count hadn’t already happened? We may never know. But Justice Thomas’ wife was deeply involved in the planning for that rally on Jan 6. It makes the court look bad, IMO. They are too politically involved.

Where did you see that his wife was involved in the planning? Was there some proof of that or just someone's claim that she did?

 

[MT15]

I think she bragged about being one of the organizers Dave. It was all over, I don’t have time right now, but I can look later today after we get home. His wife is a big conspiracy theory buff and Trumper.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I did find this re: Ginni Thomas.

Ginni Thomas, Wife of Clarence, Cheered On the Rally That Turned Into the Capitol Riot

Days later, when her post attracted attention, Thomas noted she wrote it before the violence began.

slate.com

 

[MT15]

So she was (and is, I suppose) an avid supporter of the “stolen election” crap and tweeted her support and “love” to all the rally participants. It’s still unseemly for the wife of a Supreme Court Justice to be maintaining there was massive election fraud, IMO.

 

[MT15]

From that article:

Thomas, a conservative lobbyist and zealous supporter of Donald Trump, has fervently defended the president over the last four years. On her Facebook page, she frequentlypromotes baseless conspiracy theories about a “coup” against Trump led by Jewish philanthropist George Soros, a frequent target of anti-Semitic hate. Thomas draws many of these theories from fringe corners of the internet, including an anti-vax Facebook group that claimed Bill Gates would use the COVID vaccine to kill people. In recent months, she also amplified unsubstantiated corruption claims against Joe Biden while insisting, falsely, that the Obama administration illegally spied on Trump’s 2016 campaign, then tried to rig the election against him.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

And the fact that Justice Thomas doesn't recuse himself from cases where there may be a conflict of interest due to her lobbying activities is shady.

 

[DaveXA]

And the fact that Justice Thomas doesn't recuse himself from cases where there may be a conflict of interest due to her lobbying activities is shady.

I agree. He's probably not the only one on the bench with that issue, but while there are occasions where they do recuse themselves from cases, iirc, it's pretty rare.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

A large stumbling block to more liberal use of recusal is that in the United States Supreme Court there is no mechanism where an ad hoc (fill-in) Justice may be appointed to take the place of the recusing Justice. So you open yourself up for an 4-4 split or just standard cynicism of a conservative Justice not wanting to recuse because he knows he wouldn't be able to overturn something, otherwise.

State Supreme Courts typically appoint ad hoc Justices because they are not constrained by Article III of the US Constitution.

 

[DaveXA]

A large stumbling block to more liberal use of recusal is that in the United States Supreme Court there is no mechanism where an ad hoc (fill-in) Justice may be appointed to take the place of the recusing Justice. So you open yourself up for an 4-4 split or just standard cynicism of a conservative Justice not wanting to recuse because he knows he wouldn't be able to overturn something, otherwise.

State Supreme Courts typically appoint ad hoc Justices because they are not constrained by Article III of the US Constitution.

I also tend to think that Justices themselves feel they can be impartial with just about any case and that also lessens any urgency they might feel about recusing themselves.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Womp womp, lol...

Maricopa County celebrates Cyber Ninjas audit admitting that Joe Biden did, in fact, win

Maricopa County celebrated on Thursday evening after claiming vindication in the controversial audit of the 2020 election in Arizona's largest county."A monthslong hand recount of Maricopa County's 2020 vote confirmed that President Joe Biden won and the election was not "stolen" from former...

www.rawstory.com

Trump, as always, unfazed by truth or facts
=============================

Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed during a rally in Georgia on Saturday night that the results of the Arizona election "forensic audit" concluded that President Joe Biden lost in Maricopa County, despite the report stating that Biden won with 1,040,873 votes—99 more votes than shown in the certified ballots.

"We won at the Arizona forensic audit yesterday at a level that you wouldn't believe," Trump told the crowd in Perry, Georgia. "They had headlines that Biden wins in Arizona, when they know it's not true. He didn't win in Arizona. He lost in Arizona based on the forensic audit."

The review of results by Trump's GOP allies was in line with the 2020 presidential election results and three previous audits, affirming Biden's win in Arizona's most populous county.

"Truth is truth, numbers are numbers," said Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, the Republican who pushed for the review of more than two million ballots, adding that the "numbers were very close, within a few hundred."

Still, Trump is continuing his campaign of pressuring states to investigate his baseless voter fraud claims. He slammed Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger during the rally for refusing his requests to advance a review of the election results...........

At Georgia rally, Trump falsely claims Arizona audit found he won in Maricopa County

"They had headlines that Biden wins in Arizona, when they know it's not true," Trump told his supporters in Georgia. "He lost in Arizona based on the forensic audit."

www.newsweek.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

So as more and more videos and information about the actual insurrection come to light, people’s opinions seem to be shifting. I know I have been shocked by some of the more violent videos that have come out recently, especially when juxtaposed with the relatively tame videos from the day it happened.

This is pretty much bipartisan condemnation.

Wonder what these numbers are now

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[bdb13]

NYT article is behind a paywall for me now but I think I read or skimmed it the other day.. does it refer to other individuals outside of the one Proud Boys informant? I remember a specific allegation from Tucker to be that there were many 'unnamed accessories' or whatever who there at the Capitol who were actually working with/for the FBI. If we have confirmation of just the one guy though then at this point this seems more akin to the clock theory with him where Tucker was sort-of-but-not-really correct here rather than him actually having known what he was talking about at the time he said it.

 

[samiam5211]

I think some people need to understand the difference between an informant and an undercover agent.