Law Jan 6th Committee Hearings Megathread; Links in OP

[KnightTemplar]

It was never written to allow the override, but a lot of extreme conservatives believe it will work; Steve Bannon has spoken on it several times.

The obvious path to victory is getting this to the Supreme Court, who cannot be overruled and could literally decide the fate of the country in one vote.

To be fair, something similar, albeit on a much lower level, was tried by Democrat supporters in 2016. There is a video of famous actors including Martin Sheen and RDJ, asking State Electors not to ratify Trump's victory. It didn't work, of course, but the intent to override the decision of the voters was there.

 

[shockaholic12]

LOL @ "Soft Coup"...

There was absolutely nothing to be accomplished other than protest. Nothing COULD be accomplished, which is why there was a couple hour delay and all of the congress members were back in that building business as usual the same exact day.

Total "Nothing Burger" to use Shitlib terminology...

The folks there believed delaying the certification of the election would buy trump time to release “the kraken” he was promising was coming any second to “stop the steal” and that it would pressure more conservatives like Pence to do all they could to not elect biden, whether or not they could actually do much.

of course they were historic idiots for believing any of this would work but being gullible dumb fucks doesn’t get your sedition charges dropped.

 

[Andy Capp]

To be fair, something similar, albeit on a much lower level, was tried by Democrat supporters in 2016. There is a video of famous actors including Martin Sheen and RDJ, asking State Electors not to ratify Trump's victory. It didn't work, of course, but the intent to override the decision of the voters was there.

There is a very great difference in degree. The difference is like asking your mother if you can have a cookie after your father already said no the first time you asked compared with getting caught with your hand in the jar.

 

[KnightTemplar]

There is a very great difference in degree. The difference is like asking your mother if you can have a cookie after your father already said no the first time you asked compared with getting caught with your hand in the jar.

I stated that in my original post: it was an amuaterish attempt that had no chance of success. Nevertheless, the intent was the same. In much the same way democrats and liberals argue that 1/6 was an genuine attempt to overthrow democracy. Because even though Trump's followers didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, their intent was to prevent Biden's victory being ratified.

 

[Andy Capp]

I stated that in my original post: it was an amuaterish attempt that had no chance of success. Nevertheless, the intent was the same. In much the same way democrats and liberals argue that 1/6 was an genuine attempt to overthrow democracy. Because even though Trump's followers didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, their intent was to prevent Biden's victory being ratified.

No, the intent was not the same. That's the point. Holding a gun to your head and saying, "Gimme your lunch money," is not the same as me walking up to you and saying, "Hey I want your lunch money, can I have it?" There's no expectation of violence involved in the latter; there's no serious threat, only wheedling.

I think you're playing word games with the expression "genuine attempt". It doesn't matter how genuine or not genuine it was. I agree most of those dumbfucks were just down for a riot and they didn't have any sort of plan, but there were a large majority who knew very well what they sought to accomplish and the means they were willing to employ to accomplish it, and made the attempt with zero regard for the consequences. The goal was not to overthrow democracy, IMHO, rather it was to do as much damage as possible to keep driving the wedge that is trumpism further and further into daily life.

There's a reason these people are framing their actions as part of a greater movement and they're extremely dangerous, particularly when so far, at least, none of the top dogs--and I don't mean the proud boys barf--have ended up in prison where they belong.

 

[IamStryker]

Just want to say it's really stupid how Jan 6th is made to be the worst thing ever while there was a BLM riot attack outside of the Whitehouse that is swept under the rug.

 

[Poatan Power]

No, the intent was not the same. That's the point. Holding a gun to your head and saying, "Gimme your lunch money," is not the same as me walking up to you and saying, "Hey I want your lunch money, can I have it?" There's no expectation of violence involved in the latter; there's no serious threat, only wheedling.

I think you're playing word games with the expression "genuine attempt". It doesn't matter how genuine or not genuine it was. I agree most of those dumbfucks were just down for a riot and they didn't have any sort of plan, but there were a large majority who knew very well what they sought to accomplish and the means they were willing to employ to accomplish it, and made the attempt with zero regard for the consequences. The goal was not to overthrow democracy, IMHO, rather it was to do as much damage as possible to keep driving the wedge that is trumpism further and further into daily life.

There's a reason these people are framing their actions as part of a greater movement and they're extremely dangerous, particularly when so far, at least, none of the top dogs--and I don't mean the proud boys barf--have ended up in prison where they belong.

You're getting so caught up in semantics.

Nobody cares about inconsistencies, violation of rights, or tiered justice unless it's advantageous for whatever side they like more. Principles don't matter unless they help your team score.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Because they suffered over a hundred injuries when trying to stop the mob from getting their way outside, so after the police fell back inside they focused on protecting politician's lives and containing the damage instead of detaining the angry mob's most famous member and possibly instigating more of a reaction.

I mean. They could have black bagged him stuffed him in a closet and nobody would have known.

 

[KnightTemplar]

No, the intent was not the same. That's the point. Holding a gun to your head and saying, "Gimme your lunch money," is not the same as me walking up to you and saying, "Hey I want your lunch money, can I have it?" There's no expectation of violence involved in the latter; there's no serious threat, only wheedling.

I think you're playing word games with the expression "genuine attempt". It doesn't matter how genuine or not genuine it was. I agree most of those dumbfucks were just down for a riot and they didn't have any sort of plan, but there were a large majority who knew very well what they sought to accomplish and the means they were willing to employ to accomplish it, and made the attempt with zero regard for the consequences. The goal was not to overthrow democracy, IMHO, rather it was to do as much damage as possible to keep driving the wedge that is trumpism further and further into daily life.

There's a reason these people are framing their actions as part of a greater movement and they're extremely dangerous, particularly when so far, at least, none of the top dogs--and I don't mean the proud boys barf--have ended up in prison where they belong.

I'm not playing word games. The intent was the same: to subvert the winner's democratic mandate to be elected president. The January 6th riots were far more extreme, in the sense violence was used. But both groups have the same intention. It was their methods that varied wildly.

Regarding putting the top dogs in jail; if you haven't uncovered enough evidence to even charge Trump yet, you never will. He won't spend a day in jail.

 

[Loiosh]

To be fair, something similar, albeit on a much lower level, was tried by Democrat supporters in 2016. There is a video of famous actors including Martin Sheen and RDJ, asking State Electors not to ratify Trump's victory. It didn't work, of course, but the intent to override the decision of the voters was there.

Democrats objecting to the certification was a protest of the electoral college and was never intended to accomplish anything, much like the Republicans protesting Biden's certification, except the Republicans didn't have anything to protest. They said they were protesting "the steal", but do you buy that?

Other objections came from freshman Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin and Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva.

After the session, Republicans blasted Democrats’ failed anti-Trump effort.

“It’s kind of embarrassing,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas. He said senators didn’t join because “they realized it was just a protest and it wasn’t real.​

But let's assume Democrats were up to something nefarious, I don't really care. Shouldn't Americans want to make sure the will of the voters is impossible to subvert? There is no cost here, nobody loses anything, all they'd be doing is securing the process.

Even as I'm writing this it's obvious to me that some might point out this is a similar argument as the one made by people who want identification laws, but anyone making that argument needs to address the alternative motives we have repeatedly shown where identification is concerned.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Democrats objecting to the certification was a protest of the electoral college and was never intended to accomplish anything, much like the Republicans protesting Biden's certification, except the Republicans didn't have anything to protest. They said they were protesting "the steal", but do you buy that?

Other objections came from freshman Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin and Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva.

After the session, Republicans blasted Democrats’ failed anti-Trump effort.

“It’s kind of embarrassing,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas. He said senators didn’t join because “they realized it was just a protest and it wasn’t real.​

But let's assume Democrats were up to something nefarious, I don't really care. Shouldn't Americans want to make sure the will of the voters is impossible to subvert? There is no cost here, nobody loses anything, all they'd be doing is securing the process.

Even as I'm writing this it's obvious to me that some might point out this is a similar argument as the one made by people who want identification laws, but anyone making that argument needs to address the alternative motives we have repeatedly shown where identification is concerned.

What valid basis did the Democrats have to object to the Electoral Collage's decision in 2016?

 

[reveler]

withholding exculpatory evidence is prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[White Whale]

The FBI covered up and destroyed evidence.

 

[Loiosh]

What valid basis did the Democrats have to object to the Electoral Collage's decision in 2016?

Ironically, they were objecting to voter suppression methods like ID laws.

Also important to note Clinton smashed Trump in the popular vote, putting executive mandate in the hands of the minority will once again.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Ironically, they were objecting to voter suppression methods like ID laws.

Also important to note Clinton smashed Trump in the popular vote, putting executive mandate in the hands of the minority will once again.

But that is the way the US electoral system is supposed to work, is it not? The Electoral Collage always takes precedent over the popular vote?

The UK is usually a few years behind the USA in trends. The Conservatives are trying to introduce mandatory ID for voting in a general election. In the US, it's claimed such ID discriminates against African Americans. In the UK, it's claimed it would discriminate against younger voters, who traditionally do not vote Tory.

 

[Loiosh]

But that is the way the US electoral system is supposed to work, is it not? The Electoral Collage always takes precedent over the popular vote?

It's a broken system created a very long time ago when the population was distributed differently. Here's a chart listing current vote power by state.

The UK is usually a few years behind the USA in trends. The Conservatives are trying to introduce mandatory ID for voting in a general election. In the US, it's claimed such ID discriminates against African Americans. In the UK, it's claimed it would discriminate against younger voters, who traditionally do not vote Tory.

The GOP analyzed voter data and specifically targeted areas where black people were less likely have ID and have only pushed for forms of ID black people are less likely to have. Before the VRA was gutted these laws had to be screened before they were enacted to ensure there was no racial motive, now the laws are only struck down long after the elections, when they've done their damage.

 

[Confucamus]

What valid basis did the Democrats have to object to the Electoral Collage's decision in 2016?

"It was her turn..."

 

[KnightTemplar]

It's a broken system created a very long time ago when the population was distributed differently. Here's a chart listing current vote power by state.




The GOP analyzed voter data and specifically targeted areas where black people were less likely have ID and have only pushed for forms of ID black people are less likely to have. Before the VRA was gutted these laws had to be screened before they were enacted to ensure there was no racial motive, now the laws are only struck down long after the elections, when they've done their damage.

But the system was never formally changed. So attempting to overturn an election on the basis they regard the system as no longer fair is undemocratic.

 

[Loiosh]

But the system was never formally changed. So attempting to overturn an election on the basis they regard the system as no longer fair is undemocratic.

They didn't try and overturn the election, they objected to the certification. Most of them didn't even bother to get a Senator to cosign, it was a ceremonial protest.

As I said before, that doesn't even matter. I'm willing to pretend that was the same as what's happening now to see if you agree there's a problem that needs to be fixed, one with solutions that have no cost. Make sure the letter of the law is clear that no legislature can discard the votes and choose their own electors.

The GOP is trying to pass the exact opposite laws.

 

[Loiosh]

"It was her turn..."

You're a hack.

They had pretty specific objections, which they made pretty clear.