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

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    5,083
    Reaction score
    13,022
    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.


     
    Political observers are quick to blame hyperpartisanship and political polarization for leading more than 2,000 supporters of Donald Trump to riot at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.

    But according to a recently published study, “racial resentment” – not just partisanship – explains the violence that broke out after the 2020 election.

    Angered over the claim, promoted by Trump and his closest allies, that heavily Black cities had rigged the 2020 election in favor of Democrats, white voters – some affiliated with white-nationalist groups and militias, and others acting alone – stormed the US capitol in an attempt to halt the certification of the 2020 election.


    “What Trump and Republicans did was they tried to make the point that something nefarious was going on in areas that were primarily African American,” said David Wilson, dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, who published the study with Darren Davis, a professor of political science at Notre Dame.

    The paper, Stop the Steal: Racial Resentment, Affective Partisanship, and Investigating the January 6th Insurrection, relied on a national survey of adults in the US conducted in 2021.

    Respondents were asked a question assessing their approval or disapproval of the House select committee investigating January 6, and responded to numerous statements evaluating racial resentment, such as “I resent any special considerations that African Americans receive because it’s unfair to other Americans” and “special considerations for African Americans place me at an unfair disadvantage because I have done nothing to harm them”.

    The research revealed a correlation between respondents’ feelings of racialized resentment and opposition to the House committee on January 6.

    Wilson and Davis also point to the fact that while a slew of polls show the general public split somewhat evenly over the legitimacy of the House select committee, Black Americans overwhelmingly supported the committee’s work, while white poll respondents generally opposed it.

    “Many of President Trump’s supporters believed they were being victimized by election fraud in the 2020 election, but they also believed that whites were being victimized more generally – the American way of life for them was changing and they were being disadvantaged by African Americans and other minorities,” Wilson and Davis wrote.

    The study comes as the former president and his allies are stoking unfounded fears of non-citizens voting and tainting political outcomes.

    The strategy activates “action emotions – primarily anger”, said Wilson. “When you’re angry, you want to see some problem resolved because it’s clearly not making you feel good. Your heart rate increases, you have a festering sense that things are wrong and you’re playing by the rules and other people aren’t and it’s just not right.”…….

     
    more pathetic displays by (R)
    Witnesses said the appearance Wednesday by former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and his ex-boss, former Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, triggered a distinctly negative response from some Republicans, with someone even shouting that they were cowards.

    House Speaker Joanna McClinton, D-Philadelphia, who welcomed Gonell and Dunn to the floor, called the GOP reaction to the former officers disrespectful. She said in a statement that many Republican members walked off the floor, turned their backs and booed.
     
    more pathetic displays by (R)
    Witnesses said the appearance Wednesday by former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and his ex-boss, former Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, triggered a distinctly negative response from some Republicans, with someone even shouting that they were cowards.

    House Speaker Joanna McClinton, D-Philadelphia, who welcomed Gonell and Dunn to the floor, called the GOP reaction to the former officers disrespectful. She said in a statement that many Republican members walked off the floor, turned their backs and booed.
    Fork em all. The lack of respect seriously pisses me off.
     
    more pathetic displays by (R)
    Witnesses said the appearance Wednesday by former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and his ex-boss, former Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, triggered a distinctly negative response from some Republicans, with someone even shouting that they were cowards.

    House Speaker Joanna McClinton, D-Philadelphia, who welcomed Gonell and Dunn to the floor, called the GOP reaction to the former officers disrespectful. She said in a statement that many Republican members walked off the floor, turned their backs and booed.
    The Republican Party has jeered those that defended The Capitol and those that were convicted for participating in its attack were invited guest to a recent hearing. :9:
     
    If Biden is re-elected (and despite the faulty, unreliable polls I think he will)

    Yeah. Republicans have a tough road that polling isn’t capturing. Women take birth control pills for benefits beyond avoiding pregnancy. I think the failed vote in the senate to protect access to contraception moved the needle even more. Women are going to vote in record numbers. They aren’t quietly going back to being second class citizens.
     
    Last edited:
    A Georgia Republican congressional candidate who was convicted over his part in the US Capitol riot stormed out of a live televised debate on Sunday night just a week before his party’s primary runoff.

    Chuck Hand, who is battling GOP rival Wayne Johnson for the chance to take on 16-term Democratic incumbent Sanford Bishop in November, left the stage at the Atlanta Press Club after declaring that he refused to debate Johnson.

    Rather than take a question on a new farming bill, the candidate — sporting a Caterpillar trucker’s cap and denim shirt — announced: “I’m Chuck Hand, life-long resident of the second district. I’ve worked side-by-side with the people of the second district solving problems since 2018.

    “I’ve only seen this man next to me come around when it’s election time, wanting to run for office,” he said. “I’m not interested in debating the issues of the second district with a man who doesn’t even reside in it, especially one who orchestrates attacks on my wife. I’m more concerned about beating Sanford Bishop, representing you and passing the America First agenda and putting Donald Trump back in the White House.”

    He concluded: “This race is very simple. It’s either eighth district money or second district heart. The choice is yours. It’s the dollar versus the change. Now this is where I get back in my truck and head back to southwest Georgia because I’ve got two races to win.”

    And with that, Hand marched out of the studio with the cameras rolling, as moderator Donna Lowry called after him: “You’re not staying? You’re leaving, sir? OK.”


    “Wow, I don’t even know how to react,” Johnson said.……

     
    A Georgia Republican congressional candidate who was convicted over his part in the US Capitol riot stormed out of a live televised debate on Sunday night just a week before his party’s primary runoff.

    Chuck Hand, who is battling GOP rival Wayne Johnson for the chance to take on 16-term Democratic incumbent Sanford Bishop in November, left the stage at the Atlanta Press Club after declaring that he refused to debate Johnson.

    Rather than take a question on a new farming bill, the candidate — sporting a Caterpillar trucker’s cap and denim shirt — announced: “I’m Chuck Hand, life-long resident of the second district. I’ve worked side-by-side with the people of the second district solving problems since 2018.

    “I’ve only seen this man next to me come around when it’s election time, wanting to run for office,” he said. “I’m not interested in debating the issues of the second district with a man who doesn’t even reside in it, especially one who orchestrates attacks on my wife. I’m more concerned about beating Sanford Bishop, representing you and passing the America First agenda and putting Donald Trump back in the White House.”

    He concluded: “This race is very simple. It’s either eighth district money or second district heart. The choice is yours. It’s the dollar versus the change. Now this is where I get back in my truck and head back to southwest Georgia because I’ve got two races to win.”

    And with that, Hand marched out of the studio with the cameras rolling, as moderator Donna Lowry called after him: “You’re not staying? You’re leaving, sir? OK.”


    “Wow, I don’t even know how to react,” Johnson said.……

    Bye beech.
     
    WASHINGTON — Michael Fanone, a former police officer who was nearly killed by a mob during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, spoke outside the courthouse during closing arguments in Donald Trump's hush money trial on Tuesday, calling Trump "an authoritarian" with "a violence fetish."

    Hours later, Fanone's mother was "swatted" at her home in Virginia.

    On Tuesday, a fake "manifesto" attributed to Fanone was sent to a number of email addresses, including some associated with a high school that Fanone attended for a year more than two decades ago.

    The "manifesto," viewed by NBC News, claimed that the writer had killed their mother and planned to go to the recipient's school on Wednesday and shoot more people. It provided Fanone's mother's home address.

    That night, Fanone told NBC News, his mother opened the door to law enforcement while in her nightgown, "mortified" to find SWAT team officers at her home.

    "How dangerous is it to send law enforcement to an address in which you essentially are describing an active shooter, in which the only person present is a 78-year-old f---ing woman," Fanone told NBC News.

    "This is the reality of going up against or challenging Donald Trump. ... These swatting calls are incredibly f---ing dangerous, especially when the target is somebody like my mom."……..

    But Farb & SFL get mad when I call them terrorist sympathizers.

    These are their people.
     
    Geri Perna was dining on the Mar-a-Lago patio last year with a few other family members of people who were charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol when Donald Trump visited with them and talked about pardons if he returns to the White House.

    Perna started tearing up, she recalled in an interview. Trump placed an arm around her and asked why she was crying, she said.

    “The people here all have hope because some day their January 6er is coming home,” she said she told him. “Our January 6er is never coming home.”

    Her nephew, 37-year-old Matthew Perna, entered the Capitol that day with a friend and marched through the halls chanting “USA!” He turned himself in to the FBI, told agents he tapped a window with a metal flagpole, and pleaded guilty to charges including disorderly and disruptive conduct. Her nephew’s case was delayed multiple times over 13 months. Matthew’s defense attorney told him that if he pleaded guilty he could expect a maximum sentence of six to 12 months, Geri said.

    After Matthew entered his plea, Geri said prosecutors raised the possibility of adding a sentencing enhancement that could result in multiple years in prison — a move that she described as cruel, unnecessary and capricious. During the wait, he took his own life. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on the matter.

    Meeting Geri at Mar-a-Lago, Trump promised to posthumously pardon Matthew, she recalled of their conversation. He assured her that once he did, she would be smiling.

    Perna is the only known individual rioter who Trump has specifically promised to pardon, according to interviews with about a dozen other prominent family members and advocates of those charged for their roles in the Jan. 6 attack. But Trump has made pardoning Jan. 6 defendants a signature campaign promise as he seeks another term in the White House, saying in a recent interview that he would consider all of them.

    His vow to exercise the clemency powers of the presidency has raised alarms about his support for political violence and touched off private conversations among supporters about how to deliver on his pledge.

    Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said he will decide “on a case-by-case basis when he is back in the White House.” She did not specify what criteria Trump would use. When asked directly, Trump has declined to rule out members of extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, whose leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

    Some Trump advisers and administration alumni involved in planning for a second term want Trump to limit his political exposure by distancing himself from the most violent offenders, according to people familiar with the conversations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private and preliminary discussions.

    Others are more concerned with compiling a list of names and preparing the paperwork for Trump’s signature on his first day in office. Another proposal under discussion is to convene advocacy groups for Jan. 6 defendants to make recommendations for pardons.

    Some relatives of charged and convicted rioters said they are hopeful for their loved ones but oppose blanket amnesty because they want to investigate the suspicion, which lacks evidence, that undercover operatives instigated the attack...................

     
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday made it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, a charge that also has been brought against former President Donald Trump.

    The justices ruled 6-3 that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category.

    The decision could be used as fodder for claims by Trump and his Republican allies that the Justice Department has treated the Capitol riot defendants unfairly.

    It’s unclear how the court’s decision will affect the case against Trump in Washington, although special counsel Jack Smith has said the charges faced by the former president would not be affected.

    The high court returned the case of former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer to a lower court to determine if Fischer can be charged with obstruction. Fischer has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victoryover Trump.…..



     
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday made it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, a charge that also has been brought against former President Donald Trump.

    The justices ruled 6-3 that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category.

    The decision could be used as fodder for claims by Trump and his Republican allies that the Justice Department has treated the Capitol riot defendants unfairly.

    It’s unclear how the court’s decision will affect the case against Trump in Washington, although special counsel Jack Smith has said the charges faced by the former president would not be affected.

    The high court returned the case of former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer to a lower court to determine if Fischer can be charged with obstruction. Fischer has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victoryover Trump.…..



    I literally am at a loss over this one. The very first two sentences of the SCOTUS opinion are:

    "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(1)."

    and

    "The next subsection extends that prohibition to anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” §1512(c)(2)."

    The actual text of the law reads:

    Whoever corruptly—
    (1)
    alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
    (2)
    otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

    Look closely at that little two letter word that I highlighted in bold, yellow, and underlined. The law says that if someone destroys a record OR "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so."

    How ANYONE can read that, see that word OR and interpret it to mean that they have to do one before the other becomes relevant is beyond me.
     

    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