Trump loyalists in Congress to challenge Electoral College results in Jan. 6 joint session (Update: Insurrectionists storm Congress)(And now what?) (7 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

 

[SaintForLife]

You get worse by the day. You realize that was the day he forking died, don't you? Also, Sicknick died due to his injuries on Jan 6th.

fork the Jan 6th terrorist and all that support them. fork'em all!!!

He died of natural causes and I'm aware the coroner said the what happened on the 6th contributed to his condition.

He was not killed. That's an obvious lie by Lizzy which she still hasn't corrected.

Remember the narrative that Sicknick was killed by Trump supporters hitting him in the head with a fire extinguisher? The same narrative that was referenced constantly for a month. It wasn't true.



NYT:

Remember the bear spray? Oh that wasn't true either

CNN: "The Justice Department on Tuesday abandoned the idea that pro-Trump rioters had used bear spray against Officer Brian Sicknick during the January 6 riot, a major change after implying for weeks that bear spray, not pepper spray, had been deployed."

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/27/politics/sicknick-capitol-bear-spray-pepper/index.html

 

[SaintForLife]

Well, at least we know where your loyalties lie, and it isn't with our country. That you support the views of these idiots isn't terribly surprising. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

Is that you George?

Bush: 'You Are Either With Us, Or With the Terrorists' - 2001-09-21

.

www.voanews.com

 

[SaintForLife]

The irony of this - Fox has just been outed as an actual arm of the Republican Party in court documents, so you have to make up lies about other actual real news sites.

Transparent and desperate.

Real new sites like the one referenced in The Press vs The President article?

 

[SaintForLife]

He wasn’t just accused of giving a tour - he admitted it once the tapes came out, even though he denied it before that. So not exactly someone I’m going to think is telling the truth. He’s a proven liar.

He gave his constituents from Georgia a tour of the Congressional office down the street from the Capitol. He didn't even bring them into the Capitol.

 

[SaintForLife]

Care to back that up, or are you just parroting a Kremlin apologist? Never mind, I know the answer to that one.

Oh how clever. Accusing anyone who says anything negative of the US of being a Putin supporter or a Kremlin apologist. You regurgitate those CIA talking points very well.

I don't have to back up anything. You and SamAndreas were the ones that said that most of the Dossier was true. Yall made the claim and its not true. It's on yall to back it up.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I fell for the videos. Maybe I need new glasses.

Something new from the show trial January 6th committee:



I sure hope he's lying which is bad enough, but if he's not lying the January 6th committee was even less credible than I thought.

So who had access? Was it only the ABC new producer they hired or did only the staffers have access? I think he lying and he could only claim he didn't see it because the new videos contradicts the insurrection narrative.

It was a rally that turned into a violent riot. Anyone who is claiming it wasn't violent isn't a credible person. The recent videos show that it wasn't an insurrection.

Why do you repeat talking points from known liars as fact? You can see in the Fox/Dominion thread that Tucker is among those that knowlingly pushed lies just to help keep up viewrship numbers. Does that not butt area his credibility beyond repair?

Still a valid question, SFL. I think we should all strive to use only the most trusted sources. We have definitive proof that Tucker Carlson lies for ratings. Do you still believe his version of the story?

 

[FullMonte]

It was a rally that turned into a violent riot. Anyone who is claiming it wasn't violent isn't a credible person. The recent videos show that it wasn't an insurrection.

It ended up being a violent riot? Was it a violent riot against Congress?

Because the definition of "insurrection" (according to the Oxford dictionary) is "a violent uprising against an authority or government."

So, unless it was a violent riot that had nothing to do with trying to stop Congress from certifying the election, then, yes, it was an insurrection, by your own admission.

 

[MT15]

I fell for the videos. Maybe I need new glasses.

Something new from the show trial January 6th committee:



I sure hope he's lying which is bad enough, but if he's not lying the January 6th committee was even less credible than I thought.

So who had access? Was it only the ABC new producer they hired or did only the staffers have access? I think he lying and he could only claim he didn't see it because the new videos contradicts the insurrection narrative.

It was a rally that turned into a violent riot. Anyone who is claiming it wasn't violent isn't a credible person. The recent videos show that it wasn't an insurrection.

No they most certainly do not prove it wasn’t an insurrection. We have already had several members of one extremist group that was there convicted of sedition. It was absolutely an attempt to prevent the certification of a valid federal election.

Did everyone there commit sedition? No, nobody has claimed otherwise. Some were just violent idiots, and some were just stupid enough to go along with trespassing, breaking and entering. But there were plenty of folks who intended to stop the certification and they intended to do that so that Trump could remain President even though he lost the election.

The only people who don’t think it was an insurrection are those who have no clue or those who were in on it.

 

[MT15]

Oh how clever. Accusing anyone who says anything negative of the US of being a Putin supporter or a Kremlin apologist. You regurgitate those CIA talking points very well.

I don't have to back up anything. You and SamAndreas were the ones that said that most of the Dossier was true. Yall made the claim and its not true. It's on yall to back it up.

Nope - you’re the one in here making claims. I didn’t think you could back it up.

 

[MT15]

He gave his constituents from Georgia a tour of the Congressional office down the street from the Capitol. He didn't even bring them into the Capitol.

Why was the insurrectionist in his party taking pictures of stairwells and tunnel entrances, do you think? Why do you think Loudermilk took them into areas that are closed to the public? Why did the Congressman take them to the tunnel entrances and just stand by while the guy recorded everything?

Loudermilk is a punk.

 

[bdb13]

Many of the insurrectionists stated they were going to DC to help prevent Biden from taking office.

Therefore it was quite obviously an insurrection.

An insurrection conducted and led by a bunch of dumbforks, I'll grant you.. but an insurrection it clearly was nonetheless.

 

[MT15]

I feel the same.

 

[brandon]

The recent videos show that it wasn't an insurrection.

They show it wasn’t an insurrection for some of the people there. It absolutely was an insurrection for many others, as proven with multiple seditious conspiracy convictions.

 

[brandon]

I’m just gonna post these here for no particular reason:

ter·ror·ist
/ˈterərəst/

noun

1. a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims

sym·pa·thiz·er

noun

1. a person who agrees with or supports a sentiment or opinion.

 

[SaintForLife]

You are so totally embarrassing, SFL. What you have posted is an OPINION piece where the guy said Maddow “seemed” to be rooting for the dossier to be true. Actually, no, you didn’t even do that. You posted a Fox News piece ABOUT an opinion piece from WaPo. So, I don’t trust anything Fox News says about their main competitor, and the original Op-Ed is behind a paywall now.

So this post is useless. Totally useless.

And, once again, parts of the dossier ARE true. Good lord, everything isn’t binary. It’s not all false or all true with no other options.

There's you making a claim that isn't true. If you think it's true then cite any parts of the dossier that weren't reported before the dossiers existence and that are true.

 

[SaintForLife]

Still a valid question, SFL. I think we should all strive to use only the most trusted sources. We have definitive proof that Tucker Carlson lies for ratings. Do you still believe his version of the story?

A one sided legal brief from the Dominon lawyers is definitive proof? Some or all of what they claimed in their brief may be true, but it's hardly definitive proof. It's not like it's a ruling from a judge or a jury.

 

[SaintForLife]

I'm not going to defend Jacob Chansley, claim he's innocent, or claim he did nothing wrong, but he deserved a fair trial like anyone else.

Why did the government withhold the video that Tucker released and this video?


The government is required by law to produce all evidence to the defense. Why would the government illegally withhold evidence? I think the answer is quite obvious.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

A one sided legal brief from the Dominon lawyers is definitive proof? Some or all of what they claimed in their brief may be true, but it's hardly definitive proof. It's not like it's a ruling from a judge or a jury.

The information in the brief came directly from emails and text messages turned over to them by Fox. There are two options: either the information is true, in which case we know Tucker, Hannity, et al are willing to lie for ratings, or the information is false, in which case Dominion has made demonstrably false claims in a legal filing and potentially ruined not just their case but the careers of their lawyers. Which of these is more likely to be the case?