Trump loyalists in Congress to challenge Electoral College results in Jan. 6 joint session (Update: Insurrectionists storm Congress)(And now what?) (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[DaveXA]

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.

Really don't give a shirt. That video isn’t changing a thing. They deserve worse for participating in an insurrection and plotting to overthrow the government. He may have told protestors to go home, but by that point, a lot of damage had already been done, and he was part of it. In other countries, people participating in an insurrection get executed. A few years in prison is pretty light punishment for what they did.

 

[SystemShock]

It was a rally that turned into a violent riot. Anyone who is claiming it wasn't violent isn't a credible person.

So you agree Tucker Carlson is not a credible person.

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

Trying to overturn an election fits very well with the definition of insurrection.

You don't need physical glasses. You need to remove the quasi-religious veil you have draped in front of your eyes.

 

[SaintForLife]

Really don't give a shirt. That video isn’t changing a thing. They deserve worse for participating in an insurrection and plotting to overthrow the government. He may have told protestors to go home, but by that point, a lot of damage had already been done, and he was part of it. In other countries, people participating in an insurrection get executed. A few years in prison is pretty light punishment for what they did.

It's good to know you don't give a shirt about someone getting a fair trial and having access to all the evidence against them. Who needs the 6th ammendment of the constitution right? And you guys accuse others of supporting authoritarianism.

 

[SaintForLife]

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?

Do those two options only apply to this situation? I'm asking because some people on here have ignored or claimed the emails and communications in the Twitter Files don't show the government pressuring Twitter to censor American's online speech.

As I said before those claims by Dominion may be true, but a one sided legal brief isn't definitive proof as you claimed before. I wouldn't be surprised if it is true since they are part of the corporate media that I constantly rail against.

It is hilarious to see you guys acting like it's a huge scandal while yall also ignore or make excuses for all the lies that the rest of the corporate media got caught and exposed for during the Trump years. It's similar to how yall downplayed the months of violence and rioting during the BLM riots while yall exaggerated the Capitol Riot as an insurrection. The BLM rioters attacked a federal courthouse. Does that make it an insurrection as well according to yalls standards?

 

[DaveXA]

It's good to know you don't give a shirt about someone getting a fair trial and having access to all the evidence against them. Who needs the 6th ammendment of the constitution right? And you guys accuse others of supporting authoritarianism.

He got a fair trial. The video makes absolutely no difference. Nothing there is gonna change the outcome.

What I don't give a shirt about is the whining and moaning and faux outrage.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It's good to know you don't give a shirt about someone getting a fair trial and having access to all the evidence against them. Who needs the 6th ammendment of the constitution right? And you guys accuse others of supporting authoritarianism.

He didn't get a trial at all. He pled guilty.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Do those two options only apply to this situation? I'm asking because some people on here have ignored or claimed the emails and communications in the Twitter Files don't show the government pressuring Twitter to censor American's online speech.

I didn't say those are the only two options, I just asked which of those two particular options is more likely to be true. I don't give a damn about the Twitter Files because that's not what this conversation is about.

As I said before those claims by Dominion may be true, but a one sided legal brief isn't definitive proof as you claimed before. I wouldn't be surprised if it is true since they are part of the corporate media that I constantly rail against.

They aren't claims made by Dominion. They are transcripts obtained from Fox News.

If you rail about the corporate media so much, why are you taking Tucker Carlson at face value?

It is hilarious to see you guys acting like it's a huge scandal while yall also ignore or make excuses for all the lies that the rest of the corporate media got caught and exposed for during the Trump years. It's similar to how yall downplayed the months of violence and rioting during the BLM riots while yall exaggerated the Capitol Riot as an insurrection. The BLM rioters attacked a federal courthouse. Does that make it an insurrection as well according to yalls standards?

I don't recall offering any opinion on any of those topics you mentioned. I am asking about this one particular topic. Why do you feel the need to deflect so much instead of answering questions honestly?

 

[SaintForLife]

He got a fair trial. The video makes absolutely no difference. Nothing there is gonna change the outcome.

What I don't give a shirt about is the whining and moaning and faux outrage.

How can someone get a fair trial if the prosecution withholds evidence? Are you familiar with the 6th ammendment to the Constitution?

No matter how odious the defendant is, everyone deserves a fair trial. The DOJ withheld evidence against Flynn as well. What a coincidence.

 

[SaintForLife]

He didn't get a trial at all. He pled guilty.

He took a plea deal while the DOJ withheld evidence. How do you know if he would have taken the plea deal and plead guilty after he saw the evidence that was withheld? Do you think it's okay to withhold evidence from the defendant?

 

[SFIDC3]

Deflection, accusing other side of doing what your side is doing, moving the goal posts, not answering questions when asked (see deflection), and to top it off just plain old disinformation/attempting to sow doubt into settled facts (claims made by Dominion = transcripts legally obtained from a court order showing texts/communications that none at FOX are denying)......

IMO, this joker isn't worth conversing with any longer.....

 

[SaintForLife]

I didn't say those are the only two options, I just asked which of those two particular options is more likely to be true. I don't give a damn about the Twitter Files because that's not what this conversation is about.



They aren't claims made by Dominion. They are transcripts obtained from Fox News.

If you rail about the corporate media so much, why are you taking Tucker Carlson at face value?



I don't recall offering any opinion on any of those topics you mentioned. I am asking about this one particular topic. Why do you feel the need to deflect so much instead of answering questions honestly?

I said previously the videos speak for themselves. You can mute Tucker and watch the videos and realize why Pelosi, the media and the Democrats wanted the footage hidden from the American public. I thought transparency is always a good thing.

All the current reporting is based off a legal brief from Dominion. It's one sided so it's not the complete picture. I'm not saying that what Dominion said about Fox isn't true, but that can't be determined yet.

Legal brief: A brief is a written argument submitted to the court. Lawyers often prepare briefs which highlight and clarify certain information or provide legal comparisons in an attempt to persuade the courtroom to rule in favor of that lawyer’s client.

I'm deflecting? No I'm highlighting how differently yall look at similar situations based on if democrats did it or Republicans. The obvious hypocrisy should always be noted.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

He took a plea deal while the DOJ withheld evidence. How do you know if he would have taken the plea deal and plead guilty after he saw the evidence that was withheld? Do you think it's okay to withhold evidence from the defendant?

Not at all. I just don't see how this was withheld when it appears to be:

1. publicly available video, and;
2. pointless to his case.

What's the argument to be made here? "Your honor, as you can see, my client urged everyone to go home after Donald Trump tweeted about it, long after he was recorded committing the crimes with which he is charged," doesn't hold much water.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I said previously the videos speak for themselves. You can mute Tucker and watch the videos and realize why Pelosi, the media and the Democrats wanted the footage hidden from the American public. I thought transparency is always a good thing.

It was forty-four thousand hours of video. Tucker and his team showed a few minutes of that video. Do you think he was showing things accurately or cherry-picking?

All the current reporting is based off a legal brief from Dominion. It's one sided so it's not the complete picture. I'm not saying that what Dominion said about Fox isn't true, but that can't be determined yet.

Again, you are ignoring the question at hand. What is stated in Dominion's filing came directly from Fox News and nobody is denying the accuracy. Given this which is more likely: the transcripts are real and multiple Fox on-air personalities admit to lying for ratings or Dominion is jeopardizing their own lawsuit by making it up?

Legal brief: A brief is a written argument submitted to the court. Lawyers often prepare briefs which highlight and clarify certain information or provide legal comparisons in an attempt to persuade the courtroom to rule in favor of that lawyer’s client.

Information: 1. facts provided or learned about something or someone.

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

You just admitted that what is contained in the Dominion brief is known to be true.

I'm deflecting? No I'm highlighting how differently yall look at similar situations based on if democrats did it or Republicans. The obvious hypocrisy should always be noted.

I'm not a y'all. I'm just a guy trying to have a conversation with another guy who keeps refusing to answer a simple question.

 

[MT15]

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.

See Sam’s post. This is an idiotic assertion. It has no meaning, but then that’s why your favorite propagandists are saying it.

 

[MT15]

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.

What makes you think this video was withheld by the DOJ? Chansley was presented with the evidence against him and he waived his right to a trial and plead guilty. Why would you believe a spurious claim that this tape was withheld? Lawyers get in a lot of trouble if they withhold evidence.

But, most importantly, why do you think that his lawyers just didn’t know this happened? I mean, their client was there and knew it. They could have (and probably did) use this part of his actions to argue to leniency. Trouble was he did enough bad stuff to offset this. You do know that it’s a lie that we’re not sure how he got in? And that it’s another lie that he was “escorted” the whole time by police?

The biggest question of all - why do you believe random crap like this that just makes no sense?

 

[MT15]

I’d like to highlight this first paragraph:

I said previously the videos speak for themselves. You can mute Tucker and watch the videos and realize why Pelosi, the media and the Democrats wanted the footage hidden from the American public. I thought transparency is always a good thing.

These videos were “hidden” by Pelosi, the media and the Democrats?

This is just a fairy tale, crazy claim. This right here shows you have completely parted ways with reality.

Pelosi wasn’t on the committee, the media presumably hasn’t had access to these videos, and neither has the Democratic Party. How can you “hide” something you never had?

Even the committee itself didn’t have access to all this footage.

You should explain how you came to the conclusion you stated above.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) tried to placate both sides with his faming of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Cramer joined Todd on Sunday for Meet The Press, where he fielded questions about Congressional budget negotiations and the current landscape of the GOP’s 2024 primary. In time, Todd moved the conversation toward Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, who sparked a political firestorm last week by once again portraying the U.S. Capitol rioters as “meek” and casual “sightseers,” rather than a mob of vandals who violently forced their way into Congress hoping to overthrow the 2020 election.

Carlson’s narrative was directly contradicted by former Vice President Mike Pence on Saturday night when he said “what happened that day was a disgrace, and it mocks decency to portray it in any other way.”

“Where do you come down?” Todd asked. “On Tucker Carlson’s side or on Mike Pence’s side?”

Cramer answered by saying “not everybody [from January 6th] is at the same level of crime,” though “clearly it wasn’t a peaceful protest.”

Well, first of all, both sides can be right rhetorically, but the problem is, you know, a four-hour stroll through the Capitol that’s marred by a half-hour of rioting doesn’t make it a peaceful protest. And nobody was supposed to be in the Capitol, so there’s not a single person who’s completely innocent of wrongdoing, but not everybody that day is at the same level of crime. Five hundred and eighteen, by the way, have confessed to committing crimes that day. Four hundred and twenty have been prosecuted and sentenced. So clearly, it wasn’t a peaceful protest. That’s not to say that the vast majority of them don’t have regret, or they didn’t understand the severity of what they were doing, or the severity of what some other people were doing. I do think it’s unfair to put them all in the same bucket. I’ve never felt like democracy is actually in trouble. We survived a civil war, we’re going to survive this as well.

Cramer went on to mock the Jan. 6 Committee while suggesting that the GOP shouldn’t try re-litigating the riot. Todd declined to ask Cramer about his in-part description of the “four-hour stroll through the Capitol,” instead asking if the senator had any “pause” with Fox News in light of their recently revealed conduct.............

GOP Senator Describes Jan. 6 as ‘Four-Hour Stroll Through the Capitol That’s Marred By a Half Hour of Rioting’

 

[Huntn]

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

The blatantly convenient corruption of the Republican Party to “win”, should disqualify them from any leadership positions in a legitimate democracy that insists on truth, honesty, and integrity. The issue as always is that elected Republicans are just the symptom of the illness that exists in every State of the Union to varying degrees.