Trump loyalists in Congress to challenge Electoral College results in Jan. 6 joint session (Update: Insurrectionists storm Congress)(And now what?) (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    4,900
    Reaction score
    12,437
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    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.


     
    Again, it would have made absolutely no difference. You sound like you're shilling for people participating in an insurrection. It's your right, but it's also reprehensible.
    How can anyone say for sure that it wouldn't have made a difference? I see you didn't answer the question asking if it's okay to withhold evidence from a defendant. Screw the constitution amarite?

    The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense. Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt.
     
    How can anyone say for sure that it wouldn't have made a difference? I see you didn't answer the question asking if it's okay to withhold evidence from a defendant. Screw the constitution amarite?

    The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense. Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt.
    Nobody withheld any evidence. You keep saying that but it isn’t a known fact. Not at all.

    I know you don’t deal in facts, but here in the real world we do.
     
    How can anyone say for sure that it wouldn't have made a difference? I see you didn't answer the question asking if it's okay to withhold evidence from a defendant. Screw the constitution amarite?

    The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense. Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt.
    He waived his right to a trial. The video you're talking about isn't relevant until it's required to be submitted in a trial setting. So what you're arguing is essentially a red herring. The video was irrelevant. There's nothing about this that violates the 6th amendment. Just find something else to argue because you're 100% wrong here.
     
    How can anyone say for sure that it wouldn't have made a difference? I see you didn't answer the question asking if it's okay to withhold evidence from a defendant. Screw the constitution amarite?

    The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense. Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt.

    Here's how I can say for sure it wouldn't have made a difference.

    The video shows him walking around the Capitol with officers following him around. Here is the million dollar question. Where was Congress when that video was shot? Were they still counting the votes, or had they already evacuated? The answer, of course, is that Congress had already evacuated. Because of that, the video is 100% irrelevant to his case.

    He waived his right to trial, and pleaded guilty to impeding a Congressional proceeding. So, if Congress was already recessed when the video was shot, then the crime he pleaded guilty to had already occurred. If the crime had already occurred, then the video in no way is relevant to his guilt or innocence.
     
    He waived his right to a trial. The video you're talking about isn't relevant until it's required to be submitted in a trial setting. So what you're arguing is essentially a red herring. The video was irrelevant. There's nothing about this that violates the 6th amendment. Just find something else to argue because you're 100% wrong here.
    You still won't say if a prosecutor should withhold evidence from the defense. That says a lot about your view. Who supports authoritarianism?
     
    You still won't say if a prosecutor should withhold evidence from the defense. That says a lot about your view. Who supports authoritarianism?
    Nobody withheld any evidence. You just made it up, actually I think whoever you are reading made it up. If evidence was withheld, lawyers can get in a lot of trouble for that. It didn’t happen.

    If you’re listening to Tucker Carlson about this, well, shame on you. He’s known to lie constantly. There’s no excuse for believing a word he says.
     
    who actually said all that video evidence was withheld? if it really was, his lawyers would be all over it. if they try to say it was withheld and it was not, that's some legal trouble they will put themselves in. McCarthy and Carlson were not involved in the legal process.
    do you think they were?
    why did he sign a plea deal saying those officers asked him repeatedly to leave? if that evidence wasn't out there, then how did he agree with what happened?
     
    You still won't say if a prosecutor should withhold evidence from the defense. That says a lot about your view. Who supports authoritarianism?
    Keep putting words in my mouth. Smfh. And misrepresenting my position is totally typical. Respond to the forking point instead of being obtuse. You didn't respond to my point, instead choosing to ignore it, also typical. How are we suppose to have a conversation when you simply don't discuss a given topic in good faith? Maybe it's intentional, but it's a terrible way to talk to people.

    And I can quote myself directly answering your rebuttal, but if you're too lazy to read, what gives?
     
    He waived his right to a trial. The video you're talking about isn't relevant until it's required to be submitted in a trial setting. So what you're arguing is essentially a red herring. The video was irrelevant. There's nothing about this that violates the 6th amendment. Just find something else to argue because you're 100% wrong here.

    You still won't say if a prosecutor should withhold evidence from the defense. That says a lot about your view.

    When you're wrong and don't want to admit you're wrong like man, you ignore the point you are wrong on and attempt to change the focus.
    Who supports authoritarianism?
    You do and it's pretty obvious that you do.
     
    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.


    Whether you realize it or not, it sounds like you are making excuses for insurrection.

    IMO, anyone who thinks the riot was just organic, just happened has not been paying attention or is in denial. First there was the rhetoric at the Rally itself, Go to the Capitol and fight like hell!; the term combat was used; we are coming for you!- from Trump, GuilianI, and Trump Jr addresses at the rally.


    Trump‘s motifs operandi is not to outright tell people to break the law, but he typically asks for illegal things in such a way to later if the result goes to hell he can claim plausible deniability. Hey, don’t manufacture 10,000 votes, find those votes for me!

    At this rally as well as practically every public speaking engagement he did not say break into the Capitol and turn the election in my favor, but he continuously claimed that the election was stolen, and to go fight like hell. His minions got the message.

    The problem for both Trump and the GZoP who has adopted Trump methodology is that the election was fair, so he specifically was advocating for revolution and his base swallowed. What, march up to the Capitol and shake your signs vigorously?

    From the typical Trump Rally minion: Gosh my Country has been stolen, what should a good patriot do? The answer is not only march on the Capitol, but to storm it. Militia groups arrived on behalf of the Head Liar prepared to and equipped to do just thst.



    Now could there have been people who got swept up in patriot fever? Yes apparently there were, and if you evaluate the situation, despite thinking they were patriots, assaulting the Capitol, physically engaging Capitol Police, participating in an insurrection means they should be willing to go to jail for their convictions as misguided as they were.

    The bottom line here is that there are millions of people in this country who are either gullible/stupid enough or self serving enough to believe (or go along with) the River of Lies coming from Trump and today’s GOP, because they believe they will personally benefit, and don’t think about or care about the resulting harm done to our democracy/Republic.
     

    Didn’t you completely scoff at using the statement of Hunter Biden’s attorney a week ago or so? You said it was not believable, IIRC, because of the source.

    But evidently when an attorney is saying things you like in defense of someone who tried to stop the transfer of power at the Capitol, they are a good source. Is that about the size of things here?
     
    Plus, you never answered the question: the Q-nut was actually there. If he was let into the Capitol by police he would have known that right? If he was escorted everywhere within the Capitol by police he would have known that as well. Here’s a clue: he wasn’t in either of those cases.

    What about this tape is actually evidence? Monte explained to you a long time ago in this very thread why it isn’t pertinent to the crimes committed. What makes this portion of video evidence?
     
    Didn’t you completely scoff at using the statement of Hunter Biden’s attorney a week ago or so? You said it was not believable, IIRC, because of the source.

    But evidently when an attorney is saying things you like in defense of someone who tried to stop the transfer of power at the Capitol, they are a good source. Is that about the size of things here?
    A made up story by a lawyer(with no evidence provided)is quite different that a lawyer stating his client wasn't provided Brady material(which can be easily confirmed).
     
    A made up story by a lawyer(with no evidence provided)is quite different that a lawyer stating his client wasn't provided Brady material(which can be easily confirmed).

    Refresh my memory....what evidence did Chansley's lawyer provide that his client wasn't provided access to the evidence?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom