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

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

 

[Incumbent]

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Not sure of the full context, but from that - this seems to be a bit exaggerated.

Granted, given her other tweets, I'm not sure I should be giving her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[PurpleReign]

I hope these people think Trump was worth completely destroying their lives because none of this is just going to go away. I have a friend whose son was riding in a car when one of his buddies made a really bad decision and killed someone. He’s in prison now even though he isn’t the one who killed the guy, which is extremely tragic but it’s all over but the crying as they say.

 

[Incumbent]

Not sure of the full context, but from that - this seems to be a bit exaggerated.

Granted, given her other tweets, I'm not sure I should be giving her the benefit of the doubt.

I gave it that consideration but really can’t think of a good reason why a member of Congress would be tweeting location information of any kind under those circumstances. At best, it doesn’t seem very smart.

But I also think it raises questions why she would specifically mention Pelosi anyway.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I gave it that consideration but really can’t think of a good reason why a member of Congress would be tweeting location information of any kind under those circumstances. At best, it doesn’t seem very smart.

But I also think it raises questions why she would specifically mention Pelosi anyway.

Did she actually say where she was going and how to get there? Basically, the way I read this, was just someone at the point live tweeting what's going on. Unwise? Sure, but seems pretty common these days.

But given her other tweets comparing that day as their "1776", I suppose she isn't exactly an innocent type person.

 

[MT15]

That particular member deserves zero benefit of the doubt in my opinion and here’s why:

She is pretty much part of the whole movement, she knew and said “her constituents” were part of that mob. She basically told the mob where the House members were being held and that Nancy Pelosi wasn’t one of the ones being held in that location.

She should be investigated, IMO.

 

[superchuck500]

House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said he wasn’t comfortable with the “optics” of formally declaring an emergency ahead of the demonstration, Sund said. Meanwhile, Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger suggested that Sund should informally seek out his Guard contacts, asking them to “lean forward” and be on alert in case Capitol Police needed their help.

Irving could not be reached for comment. A cellphone number listed in his name has not accepted messages since Wednesday. Messages left at a residence he owns in Nevada were not immediately returned, and there was no answer Sunday evening at a Watergate apartment listed in his name. A neighbor said he had recently moved out.

Stenger declined Sunday to comment when a reporter visited his Virginia home. “I really don’t want to talk about it,” he said.

 

[Incumbent]

Did she actually say where she was going and how to get there? Basically, the way I read this, was just someone at the point live tweeting what's going on. Unwise? Sure, but seems pretty common these days.

But given her other tweets comparing that day as their "1776", I suppose she isn't exactly an innocent type person.

I guess the way I’m questioning it, why was she tweeting about Pelosi at all, and who was it meant for?

I mean if somebody wants to convince me it was out of an abundance of concern, go for it. Pelosi is one of the most hated people among the radical base and I don’t think Boebert tweeted that with a sigh of relief.

 

[Incumbent]

I do recognize that it’s possible more is being made of it than necessary, but the bigger picture taking shape of Boebert opens her tweets up to scrutiny.

 

[JRad]

I do recognize that it’s possible more is being made of it than necessary, but the bigger picture taking shape of Boebert opens her tweets up to scrutiny.

The more we learn, the more this is all stinking. I’m not sure making more of anything is a possibility right now.

ETA: The first time I saw someone say “inside job”, I shrugged it off. But now...

 

[MT15]

so the first guy evidently was actually kicked off his flight for refusing to wear a mask, so it had nothing to do with the riot at the Capitol. Just FYI. Fact checked by Yashar

 

[DaveXA]

Nancy Pelosi on Sunday night said she would give Mike Pence, Vice President, 24 hours to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Donald Trump from office before launching impeachment proceedings.

Why wait 24 hours? Haven't we all waited long enough? Just go ahead and get it started. At least I would, I think.

 

[FullMonte]

Why wait 24 hours? Haven't we all waited long enough? Just go ahead and get it started. At least I would, I think.

If they don’t give him a deadline, it’ll be “25th amendment is still on the table,” until he’s gone. They need to put him on the clock.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[MT15]

It’s getting harder and harder to think this was incompetence or lack of preparation.

 

[DaveXA]

If they don’t give him a deadline, it’ll be “25th amendment is still on the table,” until he’s gone. They need to put him on the clock.

Eh, I don't expect the 25th to be a viable option. I mean, the only cabinet members left are likely Trump loyalists who are still behind him. I dunno. I'd just assume it's not an option. Go ahead and start the impeachment proceedings.

 

[DaveXA]

It’s getting harder and harder to think this was incompetence or lack of preparation.

Indeed. The question imo is why wasn't the Guard there even before all of this started? Remember Mayor Bowser didn't want any Guard in DC last summer and I wonder if that had any effect on preparation. If the Sgt at Arms for both chambers were resisting requests for troops, that's problematic, certainly. I do wonder how much of it was a turf thing. Although these security groups frequently work together, I wonder if some in this situation were given bad intel or something worse.

Certainly seems like this was more than a case of mistakes were made. But it's hard to put my finger on who shares the blame here. I thought it was the Capitol Police, but if this is true, then that probably explains in part why both Sgt of Arms resigned from their posts.

This is a mess, and we probably won't get the full picture until an extensive investigation is completed. That's likely going to take months, if not years.