Republican Senators to Challenge Wednesday Electoral Count – zerohedge

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | Republican Senators to Challenge Wednesday Electoral Count – zerohedge

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #390602
      ThouArtThat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,544

      Ted Cruz Leads Senators In Challenge To Wednesday Electoral Count; Demands Emergency Audit <– web link

      Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is leading a group of 11 Senators who plan to object to certifying state Electoral College votes on Wednesday.

      The group, which includes Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), are also calling for the resurrection of an Electoral Commission to conduct an emergency audit of the results.

      According to Axios, the move pits the group of GOP Senators against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had ‘hoped to avoid the spectacle of his party leading a last-ditch effort to prevent Joe Biden from being declared the 2020 election winner.’

      The move comes after Sen. Josh Howley (R-MO) said that he would raise a general objection.

      “Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed,” the eleven Senators said in a statement.

      Snip …

      “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
      - John F. Kennedy

      "The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
      - George Orwell

      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
      - Jiddu Krishnamurti

      "Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
      - Idries Shah

      "A riot is the language of the unheard."
      - Martin Luther King

    • #390649
      jwirr
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,920

      What are the rules in this form of presidential election? 11 Senators does not sound like a majority.

      jwirr

      • #390654
        jerry611
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,311

        This is just my thinking here….My theory….

        But I think this goes beyond the election. There is a bit of a civil unrest within the ranks of the GOP over internal control and power. There is the MAGA side that wants to mold the future of the party after Donald Trump. More populist and nationalist, anti-establishment, etc. And there is the establishment “Never-Trumper,” neocon side that wants to go back to the pre-2016 days. The Raganism and Bushism, etc…

        What this challenge will attempt to do is force Republicans in Congress to vote for or against Donald Trump. They will then be on the record and have to be accountable to Republican voters in primaries in 2022 and 2024. If the polls are correct that 70-some percent of Republican voters support the MAGA side of this war, then the establishment could lose significantly in the primaries.

      • #390655
        ThouArtThat
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 4,544

        @jwirr

        Hi jwirr,

        My simple understanding is that an objection form one senator and one representative in the joint session next Wednesday will trigger a recess and then two hours of debate within the house and senate chambers respectively.  The two bodies will then reconvene to decide what they will do about the objection.

        TAT

        “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
        - John F. Kennedy

        "The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
        - George Orwell

        "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
        - Jiddu Krishnamurti

        "Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
        - Idries Shah

        "A riot is the language of the unheard."
        - Martin Luther King

      • #390851
        Jim Lane
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 883

        An objection, if signed by at least one Representative and at least one Senator, must be considered by each chamber separately.  If both chambers (voting by simple majority) accept the objection, the challenged electoral votes are tossed.

        The vote in the House follows the normal procedure of one-Representative-one-vote.  The special rule about voting by delegation (one-state-one-vote) applies only if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes.

        Obviously, the House will reject all challenges.  In the Senate, the Republican edge is small enough that a few defectors (even buzzards gag sometimes) will serve to defeat the challenges.  People like Murkowski and Romney will vote with the Democrats.

        In the unlikely event that a challenge is accepted by one chamber but rejected by the other, the statute establishes a tiebreaker: The slate certified by the executive of the state (state governor or DC Mayor) is the one that counts.

        Even the Republican governors have certified the Biden electors.

        The only remaining hope for the anti-Biden forces is that a few of them want Pence to try to sabotage the election.  He presides over the joint session of Congress that counts the votes.  Although the Constitution says that the VP shall open all the certificates, a few right-wingers are arguing that he should refuse to open or count the ones that are “obviously” improper.  The only significance of this is that, assuming Pence eschews any such power grab, he will, by following the Constitution, permanently alienate some of the Trumpists, who will denounce him for it if he runs in 2024.

        • #390852
          ThouArtThat
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 4,544

          @jimlane

          Hi jl,

          Please provide credible web-links for assertion of facts.

          If this is your opinion then state that clearly.

          TAT

          “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
          - John F. Kennedy

          "The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
          - George Orwell

          "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
          - Jiddu Krishnamurti

          "Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
          - Idries Shah

          "A riot is the language of the unheard."
          - Martin Luther King

          • #390964
            Jim Lane
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 883

            @thouartthat

            I mean, it’s not as if there’s been any information online about this procedure in the last few weeks.

            Exiting sarcasm mode: You’ll find a thorough discussion in the relevant Wikipedia article (link). I’ve copied the applicable section below.

            Now, before you or anyone else can jump in with the typical disparagement of Wikipedia, let me point out that, in the excerpt below, every bracketed number represents a footnote. You can go to the Wikipedia article, at the link I provided, and click on any or all of those footnotes. You will be able to see the citation that some Wikipedia editor thinks supports that particular statement.

            I sometimes edit Wikipedia. If your own research leads you to conclude that this article is inaccurate or incomplete in any respect, please let me know, along with the citation(s) that show your objection to be more than just your opinion. I’ll be glad to fix the error.

            Counting procedures[edit]
            Section 4 of the Electoral Count Act (now 3 U.S.C. § 15) provides both detailed procedures and counting rules for specific situations. It significantly expands upon the Twelfth Amendment, which states only that “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”[18]
            This central section of the Electoral Count Act has been significantly criticized. It is a “mammoth section some 814 words in length”[10]:n.8 that makes for difficult parsing, and “[m]any of its substantive rules are set out in a single sentence that is 275 words long.”[10]:543
            Procedures for joint session[edit]

            Electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress, 2017
            Under Section 4 (3 U.S.C. § 15), Congress is required to be in session on January 6 following the election to count the votes, although this date can be changed by law. Due to the 20th Amendment, the joint session is conducted by the new Congress whose term begins on January 3, rather than the outgoing lame-duck Congress. The Senate and House must meet in the House Chamber at “1 o’clock in the afternoon” on January 6, and the president of the Senate – the sitting vice president of the United States – is the presiding officer.[36] Section 7 (3 U.S.C. § 16) specifies the seating arrangements in the House chamber.[41]
            Two tellers must be “previously appointed” by the Senate and two tellers by the House of Representatives. The president of the Senate must open all the “certificates” and “papers purporting to be certificates” of the electoral votes, and hand them to the four tellers as they are opened. The certificates and papers must be “opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A.” The tellers, “having read the [papers] in the presence and hearing of the two Houses,” must “make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the … certificates.”[36]
            If there are any objections to the returns from any state (see Substantive counting rules below), they must be resolved before the process can continue to the next state: “No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.”[36] This has only happened twice. The first time was in 1969, with an objection to a faithless voter in North Carolina.[3] The second was on January 6, 2005 with a formal challenge to Ohio’s electoral votes, resulting in a vote — 1-74 (Yea-Nay) in the Senate and 31–267 in the House.[42]
            Debate rules[edit]
            The structure of the Electoral Count Act’s procedural provisions generally requires that any questions arising during the counting process be determined by the two houses acting separately, rather than by both houses together on the House floor. Section 5 (now 3 U.S.C. § 18) states that “the President of the Senate shall have power to preserve order; and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw.” Section 6 (now 3 U.S.C. § 17) states that whenever the two Houses have separated “to decide upon an objection … or other question arising in the matter,” each Senator and Representative may “speak to such objection or question” for five minutes, and not more than once.[43] After the debate has lasted two hours, the presiding officer of each House must “put the main question without further debate.”[43] Once the two houses have both voted, “they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted.”[36]
            Section 7 (now 3 U.S.C. § 16) states that the joint session cannot be dissolved “until the count of electoral votes shall be completed and the result declared.”[41] No recess can be taken “unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, or otherwise under [Title 3, Chapter 1],” in which case either House, acting separately, can recess itself until 10:00 am the next day (Sunday excepted).[41] But if the counting of the electoral votes and the declaration of the result have not been completed before the fifth calendar day after the joint session began, “no further or other recess shall be taken by either House.”[41]
            Role of the vice president[edit]

            Biden presiding over the 2017 electoral college vote
            The Constitution instructs that electoral votes must be sent to the president of the Senate – who is the sitting vice president of the United States – and that the Senate president must “open all the certificates” in the presence of both houses.[18] However, the sitting vice president is sometimes a candidate for president in the election, is often a candidate for re-election to the vice presidency, and is almost always a partisan with a keen interest in the outcome. Recognizing this, one key purpose of the Electoral Count Act’s procedural provisions is “to drain away as much power as possible from the Senate president, whom the [law] appoints to preside at the joint session when Congress counts the votes.”[10]:634
            As the custodian for papers, the Senate president is required by the Constitution to “open all the certificates,”[18] which the Act further describes as “all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates.”[36] In doing so, the goal of the Act “was to reduce the Senate President’s discretionary power as gatekeeper to the absolute minimum….”[10]:639 Indeed, in one case from 1889, papers sent as a “practical joke” have been presented to the joint session.[10]:638 Whether the Senate president can be required to present or not present any particular paper is an open question, but one commentator argues that concurrent action by both houses would settle the matter while disagreement between the houses would see the Senate president’s decision upheld.[10]:639
            As the presiding officer during the joint session, the Senate president must follow the Electoral Count Act’s provisions governing debate and procedure, which are unusually specific (see above), with one early commentator describing them as “exhaustive” and as good “as human wit can divine.”[9]:652[10]:n.580 These provisions “seem designed to drain as much power as possible away from the Chair and give it to the two houses.”[10]:640 After the 2000 election, Vice President Al Gore ruled that a number of procedural motions were out of order by extending the Act’s formal requirements for substantive objections – that is, to be presented in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator – to procedural questions.[10]:648–49 This suggests that if procedural motions and appeals were made in that manner, they would be allowed and the two houses would have to separate to consider them.[10]:649
            Substantive counting rules[edit]
            The structure of Section 4 (3 U.S.C. § 15) separates the substantive counting rules primarily in two sentences. The first describes the rule for making objections, and includes limits on congressional rejection of votes where “but one return [from the state] has been received.” The second, very lengthy sentence relates to situations where “more than one return or paper purporting to be a return” has been received.”[36]
            Single return[edit]
            Under Section 4 (3 U.S.C. § 15), upon reading of “any certificate or paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.” Every objection must be made in writing, and must “state clearly and concisely, and without argument,” the ground for the objection. It must be signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives before the objection can be received. Once all objections to any vote or paper from a state have been received and read, the Senate withdraws and the two houses consider the objections separately.
            However, when considering such objections, Section 4 requires that – assuming “but one return [from the state] has been received” – no electoral votes from electors whose appointment has been “lawfully certified” under the ascertainment process (see above) can be rejected. The two houses may only reject a vote or votes if both houses agree that such vote(s) have not been “regularly given” by an individual elector or electors.[36] Under the law, Congress may still reject a state’s electors if both houses decide to do so, but only when they determine either that the appointment of electors was not “lawfully certified” by the governor under the ascertainment process, or that the votes themselves were not “regularly given” by the electors.[10]:616
            The phrase “regularly given” is generally understood as referring to issues regarding an elector’s actual vote, rather than whether the elector has been properly appointed.[10]:671 It could include, for example, situations where an elector cast a particular vote because of bribery or corruption,[10]:670 or mistake or fraud.[21]:338 It may also include situations where the elector did not vote in accordance with applicable constitutional and statutory requirements.[10]:670[21]:338
            Notably, this portion of Section 4 applies to all cases where a single return is received, regardless of whether the safe harbor under Section 2 (3 U.S.C. § 5) applies or not. Since safe harbor determinations are supposed to be “conclusive,” there is some tension between the provisions since Section 4 still allows for Congress to reject a state’s votes. One commentator finds the conflict “more apparent than real,” arguing that Section 4 only allows for rejection of safe-harbor electoral votes in cases involving “the electors’ post-ascertainment conduct” and to “constitutional infirmities in their status as electors or in the votes they cast.”[10]:616
            History[edit]
            This provision of the law was designed to resolve the significant question in the nineteenth century regarding the proper role of Congress in reviewing controversies about which electors a state had appointed. It has been described as reflecting a balance between giving Congress unfettered ability to reject a state’s electoral votes vs. deferring to state determinations, which was a significant topic of discussion during the Reconstruction era.[10]:614–15
            The first time an objection was contemplated was in 1969 when a faithless elector from North Carolina voted for George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon.[44][45]
            After the 2004 United States presidential election, Senator Barbara Boxer of California joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in filing a congressional objection to the certification of Ohio’s Electoral College votes due to alleged irregularities including disqualification of provisional ballots, alleged misallocation of voting machines, and disproportionally long waits in poor and predominantly African-American communities.[45][46] The Senate voted the objection down 1–74; the House voted the objection down 31–267.[45]
            Multiple returns[edit]
            In cases where multiple returns have been submitted from a state, Section 4 (3 U.S.C. § 15) seeks “[to direct] Congress away from an open ended search for the proper return, and towards the simpler issues of identifying the state’s final determination authority and whether that institution had reached its decision according to the terms and conditions of [3 U.S.C. § 5].”[10]:627 It seeks to “reduce to a minimum the cases where any difference can properly arise.”[47]:1020 In one sentence of 275 words, the law appears to envision three different scenarios:
            If there are multiple returns yet only one is compliant with the safe harbor, then the safe harbor return must be counted as the true return, assuming the votes have been “regularly given” by the electors. If more than one return, or paper purporting to be a return, from a state is received by the president of the Senate, then the only votes to be counted are those that have been “regularly given” by those electors (or their validly-appointed successors) who are shown by the “determination” mentioned in 3 U.S.C. § 5 (“safe harbor”) to have been appointed, assuming the determination has been made.[36]
            If two or more returns from a state can claim the safe harbor, then neither will be counted unless both houses agree to count one of them as the true return supported by state law. In case the question arises “which of two or more … State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in [3 U.S.C. § 5], is the lawful tribunal of such State,” then votes “regularly given” will only be counted from electors that the two houses, acting separately, concurrently decide is supported by “the decision of such State so authorized by its law.”[36] This appears to be Congress’ response to the problem of dueling state governments that arose during the election of 1876.
            If there are multiple returns yet none can claim the safe harbor, one return can be counted if both houses agree it complies with state law, and were “regularly given” by the electors. If there has been “no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid,” votes will only be counted that the two houses concurrently decide were cast by “lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State,” unless the two Houses, acting separately, concurrently decide “such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.”[36] Read in isolation, it would mean that one return can be counted as the true return if both houses agree it complies with state law, unless both houses further agree the votes themselves were not “regularly given” by the electors.
            However, this critical sentence then follows: “But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then … the votes of the electors whose appointment has been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.”[36]
            Scope of governor’s tiebreaker[edit]
            Commentators have differed over the interplay between the governor’s “tiebreaker” sentence and the lengthy 275-word sentence that precedes it. There is broad agreement that the tiebreaker must modify the third scenario of multiple returns where none can claim the safe harbor. However, a possible ambiguity involves the second scenario in which multiple returns do claim the safe harbor:
            One conceptual possibility is that this new sentence operates upon the immediately preceding clause, the one concerning what to do when none of multiple returns are claimed to have Safe Harbor status. The other conceptual possibility is that this new sentence operates upon all preceding clauses involving multiple returns, both when none claim Safe Harbor status and when more than one so claim.[48]:356
            L. Kinvin Wroth, writing in 1960, stated that the tiebreaker only applies to the third scenario, in which there has been no safe harbor determination by state authorities. Thus, in the second scenario where two returns claiming the safe harbor are received, “f the Houses cannot agree … no vote from the state in question is counted. This result follows regardless of the governor’s action.”[21]:343 In 2001, a Congressional Research Service report authored by Jack Maskell “embraced Wroth’s view of the statute, citing and quoting Wroth’s article extensively.”[49][48]:357 Maskell’s CRS report also added more arguments based on the legislative history of the Electoral Count Act.[49][48]:357
            For example, Senator George Hoar, who introduced the tiebreaker as a floor amendment, mentions it only in the context of the third scenario where there is no safe harbor determination.[10]:663 Senator Hoar stated that “if the amendment which I have proposed shall be adopted no case can arise under this bill of rejecting the vote of any State except in the single case of dual State governments,”[47]:1020 seemingly referring to the second scenario above. Hoar said the bill tells a State: “Appoint your own judicature in your own fashion to determine this question; if you do not do it, we shall assume that you desire that the certificate of your governor shall determine it.”[47]:1022
            In contrast, Stephen A. Siegel argues textually that based on punctuation, the tiebreaker provision should be read “as relating to the entire preceding sentence, not just to the clause after the final semicolon.”[10]:664 Siegel viewed the main purpose of amendments that led to the tiebreaker being added as being to “respond to congressmen concerned about the power of one house of Congress to disenfranchise a state when there were multiple returns.” He reads the legislative history differently, and notes that the conference report states as follows:
            The general effect of all [the reconciling amendments], and of the bill as report …, is to provide for the decision of all questions that may arise as to its electoral vote to the State itself, and where, for any reason, that fails, then the Houses circumscribe their power to the minimum under any circumstances to disfranchise a State, and such result can only happen when the State shall fail to provide the means for the final and conclusive decision of all controversies as to her vote.[10]:664–65[50]
            Siegel also argues that if the two Houses disagree about whether a return claiming the safe harbor has actually satisfied the safe harbor requirements, the Wroth-Maskell reading would prevent them from counting any other return. That is, “a return that claims (safe harbor) status may not trump all, but it does forestall all,” which Siegel argues is not what Congress could have intended.[10]:668–69
            History[edit]
            These provisions were a reaction to the problem of multiple returns encountered in the 1876 United States presidential election, before the Electoral Count Act was passed. From each of four states, two sets of returns were transmitted to Washington, D.C.
            Hawaii became a state in 1959. In its first presidential election in 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon won the popular vote by a narrow 141 vote margin, Governor William Quinn certified the Republican electors, and they cast Hawaii’s three electoral votes for Nixon. When the election was challenged in court, the Democratic electors cast three electoral votes for President-elect John F. Kennedy, but cast them later than the safe harbor deadline. A certification for the Democratic votes was issued when a recount resulted in Kennedy being declared winner by 115 votes. When both Democrat and Republican electoral votes from Hawaii were presented for counting, Vice President Nixon graciously, and saying “without the intent of establishing a precedent”,[51] permitted the Democratic votes for Kennedy to be counted.[13][52]
            In 2020, several Republican groups, including some groups of electors slated by the Republican Party and defeated in popular voting, cited the Hawaii precedent and held events naming alternative electors who will be voting for Donald Trump.[33][53][54] None of these electors was appointed as an elector by any organ of state government or certified as electors by their state governors.[33] Moreover, all states except Wisconsin certified their results by the “safe harbor” deadline,[55] which under the Act is “conclusive.”[4] None of those certifications have included these alternative electors.[33] Observers, including the conservative National Review, have described these electors as “extralegal,” “bizzaro,” and “hav[ing] no actual significance.”[56][57][54][58]
            Results[edit]
            Once the votes have been “ascertained and counted in the manner and according to the rules … provided” by the Act, “the results … shall be delivered [by the tellers] to the president of the Senate.” The Senate president “shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice-President of the United States.”[36] An earlier version of the bill would have required the Senate president to announce “the names of persons, if any, elected,” but the phrase was stricken with the Conference Report explaining that the reason for the change was “to prevent the President from doing more than announcing the state of the vote as ascertained and delivered to him by the tellers….”[10]:642–43[59]
            Majority of electors[edit]
            To be elected by the electoral college, the Constitution requires that a candidate receive “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.”[18] One early virtue of this wording was that if certain states decided not to participate in the election by failing to appoint any electors, a president could still be elected by a majority of those who were appointed.[21]:324[10]:653
            However, when Congress rejects a state’s electoral vote, or chooses not to count any of multiple competing returns, “the effect that decision has on the denominator that determines whether a candidate has more than fifty percent of the electoral vote is an entirely open issue.”[10]:653. For example, if there are currently 538 total votes, and all votes from a state that appointed 20 electors are rejected, a majority could be either remain as 270 votes out of 538, or be reduced to 260 votes out of 518. Historical precedent is split, and in those previous cases where a state’s electors were rejected or considered for rejection, it has never mattered as to whether the winning candidate had achieved a majority. “Perhaps because the diversity of strongly held views might imperil the delicate web of compromises supporting the [Electoral Count Act], Congress avoided addressing the issue in the [Electoral Count Act].”[10]:654
            A future joint session “might be called upon to address the effect of this situation” without clear precedents.[60]:5 While Congress would likely be able to decide the issue by a vote of both houses during a future session, if one house finds that a candidate has achieved a majority and the other house disagrees, the Electoral Count Act provides no default rule nor any path forward. Nor can the Senate president play any role in deciding the matter, since his or her role in delivering results is strictly limited by the Act to receiving the tellers’ lists and “announc[ing] the state of the vote.”[10]:653. The Senate president does not announce “the names of persons elected,” since Congress specifically rejected that option as explained above.
            If no candidate is determined to have a majority, then the contingent election procedure described in the Twelfth Amendment would be used.[18] The House, voting by states, would elect the president, and the Senate would elect the vice president.
            Failure to complete process[edit]
            By imposing strict limits on procedures, debate, and recesses, the Electoral Count Act is designed to help Congress achieve an election result before the term of the outgoing president ends. Nevertheless, if no new president (or vice president) has been elected by that time, the Twentieth Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act would mean that the Speaker of the House would be sworn in as acting president. Notably, Section 1 of the amendment makes clear that the terms of the outgoing president and vice president shall end on January 20 at noon; they cannot be extended except by constitutional amendment.
            One commentator has described situations in which ambiguities under the Electoral Count Act could cause the two houses to disagree about whether the electoral count has been completed or not,[48]:360 or to disagree about whether a new president has been chosen.[48]:362 The situations described could potentially leave matters unclear about who is president on January 20, including simultaneous claims from different individuals to the presidency.

          • #390990
            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 21,888

            @jimlane ‘s opinion of what will happen coincides with my own. Nothing of significance will happen. Biden will become President. There will be no fascist militias descending on Washington. This is all a bunch of hooey. Just more political theater for the proles; in this case, the right wing proles more than others, but still just theater.

            It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

            You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

            • #391047
              Jim Lane
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 883

              @ohiobarbarian

              It’s an occasion for the Proud Boys and WWG1WGA crowd to feel important.  Judging from posts on Free Republic, some of them envision a million or more righteous patriots, armed to the teeth, who will either intimidate Congress or, failing that, will storm the Capitol to seize and execute all the traitors.  (On FR, pessimism about what happens January 20 has been steadily growing.  Nevertheless, there are still a few who predict a second Trump inauguration.  Trump has some killer evidence of fraud that he’s been sitting on, or he will invoke the Insurrection Act, or the throng of outraged Americans in the streets will effect justice, or God will intervene.  I’ve been spending too much time reading FR lately.  Maybe my New Year’s resolution should be to eschew schadenfreude.)

              I predict that the actual turnout on Wednesday won’t even reach the historic (ha ha) level of Trump’s inauguration.  Also, the DC police are certainly monitoring the situation.  The demonstrators may well be outnumbered by the law enforcement officers.

        • #391012
          ThouArtThat
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 4,544

          @jimlane

          Hi jl,

          You might enjoy the following post as it explores a 2019 paper predicting the contested 2020 presidential election.

          It offers a legal opinion as to how Wednesday January 6th could go down.

          https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/2019-paper-predicted-2020-disputed-presidential-election-epoch-times/#post-391011

          TAT

          “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
          - John F. Kennedy

          "The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
          - George Orwell

          "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
          - Jiddu Krishnamurti

          "Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
          - Idries Shah

          "A riot is the language of the unheard."
          - Martin Luther King

          • #391053
            Jim Lane
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 883

            @thouartthat

            You’re referring to an Epoch Times article that summarizes a law review article by Professor Edward Foley.  The Foley article is one of the sources cited in the Wikipedia link I provided.

            The key point to note is that Trump would have a chance only in the case of competing slates of electors.  As the Epoch Times article summarizes:

            Foley notes, however, that Trump doesn’t require a court victory in order to “press his case to Congress. As long as he gets the state legislature to appoint his presidential electors directly, and those electors submit their purported electoral votes to the President of the Senate—who happens to be his vice president, Mike Pence—he has a fighting chance.”

            The right-wingers were indeed hoping for that.  There were even some Republican legislators in the disputed states who wanted to do it.  In no state, however, have these anti-democratic forces mustered a legislative majority to try to overturn Biden’s election.

            Some of the would-be Trump electors have gotten together and “cast” their “votes” anyway.  They are merely private citizens, with no legal role.  Trump may be privately urging Pence to open those envelopes, but I doubt that even Pence would go that far.

            • #391068
              ThouArtThat
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 4,544

              @jimlane

              Hi jl,

              As was said, you might be interested in the Epoch Times article since it bolsters a view one seems to favor.

              TAT

              “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
              - John F. Kennedy

              "The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
              - George Orwell

              "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
              - Jiddu Krishnamurti

              "Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
              - Idries Shah

              "A riot is the language of the unheard."
              - Martin Luther King

          • #391265
            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 21,888

            And if they show up armed and get shot, well, I will experience schadenfreude at that point.

            It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

            You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #390658
      retired liberal
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,341

      When, even with their election fraud, the Republicans* lose, even treason is on the table as a viable alternative.
      Such is the corruption of our government.

      * “Democrat” can often be substituted here.

      We are an arrogant species, believing our fantasy based "facts" are better than the other person's fake facts.
      The older we get, the less "Life in Prison" is a deterrent.
      Always wear a proper mask when out and about. The life you save could be both yours and mine.
      Don't forget that the S in IoT stands for Security.

    • #390673
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,558

      https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-how-congress-settles-electoral-college-disputes

      Since both sides are crap, this will be interesting.  The outcome is no doubt decided, and this is just for campaign pandering and money-grubbing.  IMO and all that.  As others have said –

       

      America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

      Everything I post is just my opinion, and, honestly, I would love to be wrong.

    • #390806
      peacecorps
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,225
      <h2></h2>

      it’s “Let the politicians decide in January – not the voters.”

      Interesting how that works. 🙂

      The Big Lie: "Make the lie big, Make it simple, Keep saying it, And eventually they will believe it." AH.

      "Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect." JG

      National issues (slavery/racism, income inequality, pandemics and pathetic health care, weak unions) are not solved with more states' rights. Global problems (climate change, migration, trade, war, pandemics) are not solved with more nationalism.

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.