How do you overturn something that actually hasn't happened?

[EatTheRich]

Again, an over generalization that does not accurately describe what happened. You claim there was no fraud and that is what the courts ruled, its actually not what they ruled. Of course, you will never be honest about anything just like your party.

Just keep screaming about the Pillow Guy and repeating "most secure election in history"...

Many courts ruled there had not been fraud on a level anywhere remotely sufficient to justify changing the awarding of electoral votes.

 

[TBLee]

Most likely. They don’t have enough of their support base hostile to democracy to get away with obstructing it, which is why when Republicans win elections both sides agree to give them the political power due, while when Democrats win elections Republicans try to annul the elections by violence.

Ahhh! Ok I will remember this. IF the Republican’s do well in November, we will see how well the Democrat’s react, and what their acceptance level is of the elections. Should be interesting….

 

[Jack4freedom]

What about the upcoming election in November? IF there is a red wave in November do you believe Democrats are going to be all in on the certification of such?

In any close election, it is not unusual for the loser to call for recounts or present credible evidence that the count was wrong. However it is unusual for the loser to call and pressure State Election officials to “find 10,000 votes for me” or to organize a violent mob designed to stop or delay the EC count. If the Democrats lose in November and pull any of the kind of shit Trump pulled, I will fully support a thorough investigation into their antics and call for the criminals to be prosecuted.

 

[Addy]

Counting the electoral votes was a formality. He was trying to prevent the winner’s victory from being counted.
Such as? He questioned it in court without success (because he had no evidence of malfeasance) … what then gave him the right to stage a terrorist attack on the U.S. to alter the outcome?

No right at all, Trump had been told/warned his actions of obstructions were illegal.
This is what I just now read.
________________________________________

At the top of the third day of public hearings for the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on Congress, Vice-Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) made a short statement that might provide evidence that could be used against former president Donald Trump.

Ryan Goodman, former special counsel to the Department of Defense, cited 18 US §1512, which makes it illegal to corruptly obstruct an official congressional proceeding.
Devastating evidence indicates that Trump knew he lost -- so his actions were criminal - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

While admittedly I haven't heard all of the one-sided hearing about 1/6 yet, at least the parts they've presented so far, but there is one thing that keeps being said over and over. That is they keep saying that Prez Trump was trying to overturn the election. According to everything I've seem the election had not been completed yet. He was trying to send the electoral information back to the states to review for corrections.

The election was not complete until it was certified, that being part of the process, so he was not trying to overturn something that had not been completed.

Watch the hearings. Until then, you’re just babbling about what they tell you on Fox Noise.

 

[Addy]

Trump can't escape accountability forever.
_________________________________

Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship, Equal Protection, and Other Post-Civil War Provisions

• Section 3 Disqualification and Public Debt
  No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
  • Amdt14.S3.1 Disqualification from Holding Office
    • Amdt14.S3.1.1 Disqualification Clause

The Jan. 6 committee must spotlight Trump’s acts of insurrection | The Hill
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection should focus on disqualifying former President Donald Trump from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Disqualification is triggered by engaging in “insurrection against the authority of the United States.” The committee should assemble an ironclad record showing that Trump engaged in insurrection against the authority of the United States under the 12th Amendment by directly, repeatedly and menacingly exhorting Vice President Mike Pence to not count state-certified electoral votes that had survived more than 60 judicial challenges, as the amendment requires.

 

[Boltlady]

Trump can't escape accountability forever.
_________________________________

Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship, Equal Protection, and Other Post-Civil War Provisions

• Section 3 Disqualification and Public Debt
  No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
  • Amdt14.S3.1 Disqualification from Holding Office
    • Amdt14.S3.1.1 Disqualification Clause

The Jan. 6 committee must spotlight Trump’s acts of insurrection | The Hill
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection should focus on disqualifying former President Donald Trump from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Disqualification is triggered by engaging in “insurrection against the authority of the United States.” The committee should assemble an ironclad record showing that Trump engaged in insurrection against the authority of the United States under the 12th Amendment by directly, repeatedly and menacingly exhorting Vice President Mike Pence to not count state-certified electoral votes that had survived more than 60 judicial challenges, as the amendment requires.

The hope of being able to prove all those things against Trump is probably why they aren't allowing any cross examination. They don't dare let people hear 'the rest of the story' because the truth doesn't fit their agenda. They're so afraid that Trump might get into power again and expose more of their corruption.

BTW cross examination is what they do in a real hearing.

 

[Addy]

The hope of being able to prove all those things against Trump is probably why they aren't allowing any cross examination. They don't dare let people hear 'the rest of the story' because the truth doesn't fit their agenda. They're so afraid that Trump might get into power again and expose more of their corruption.

BTW cross examination is what they do in a real hearing.

This is not a trial this is a hearing.

 

[Boltlady]

This is not a trial this is a hearing.

Mebbe so but every hearing that I ever watched before had questions and comments from both sides. That's not happening at all. Cheney and Kinsinger don't count since they've let their animosity show clearly.

 

[Colorforms]

Counting the electoral votes was a formality. He was trying to prevent the winner’s victory from being counted.
Such as? He questioned it in court without success (because he had no evidence of malfeasance) … what then gave him the right to stage a terrorist attack on the U.S. to alter the outcome?

You keep lying about Trump staging a terrorist attack. I mean, I know you lie an awful lot, but still, we all know you're full of shit when you make that charge.

 

[Addy]

Mebbe so but every hearing that I ever watched before had questions and comments from both sides. That's not happening at all. Cheney and Kinsinger don't count since they've let their animosity show clearly.

Some who have been testifying and others on the long list so far.
_______________________________________

Who are the witnesses testifying at the Jan. 6 hearings? | PBS NewsHour

 

[EatTheRich]

The hope of being able to prove all those things against Trump is probably why they aren't allowing any cross examination. They don't dare let people hear 'the rest of the story' because the truth doesn't fit their agenda. They're so afraid that Trump might get into power again and expose more of their corruption.

BTW cross examination is what they do in a real hearing.

Cross examination is what they do in a courtroom. The analogous element in a congressional hearing is played by allowing both parties in Congress to question the witnesses.

 

[EatTheRich]

Mebbe so but every hearing that I ever watched before had questions and comments from both sides. That's not happening at all. Cheney and Kinsinger don't count since they've let their animosity show clearly.

Anyone who entered with an open mind and respect for the Constitution ended up becoming hostile to Trump based on the uncovered pattern of treason. McCarthy and McConnell made the decision not to have pro-Trump Republicans on the committee.

 

[Boca]

Dems got their work cut out in stealing the midterms this year.

Unlike presidential elections where one corrupt blue mega city can create enough phony ballots to be counted to win a state in a close election, that's not the case for midterms.

Don't count on it. Where there's a will there's a way. For the most part the machinery is still intact.

 

[TBLee]

In any close election, it is not unusual for the loser to call for recounts or present credible evidence that the count was wrong. However it is unusual for the loser to call and pressure State Election officials to “find 10,000 votes for me” or to organize a violent mob designed to stop or delay the EC count. If the Democrats lose in November and pull any of the kind of shit Trump pulled, I will fully support a thorough investigation into their antics and call for the criminals to be prosecuted.

Ok. We can go with that. So, IF we see a major red wave in November, then the loser should concede without hesitation? We can expect that to happen this fall, correct?

 

[Boca]

In any close election, it is not unusual for the loser to call for recounts or present credible evidence that the count was wrong. However it is unusual for the loser to call and pressure State Election officials to “find 10,000 votes for me” or to organize a violent mob designed to stop or delay the EC count. If the Democrats lose in November and pull any of the kind of shit Trump pulled, I will fully support a thorough investigation into their antics and call for the criminals to be prosecuted.

Me too. Had it been undertaken post Election 2020 January 6, 2021 would have been just another day and the State of the Union wouldn't be in the toilet.

 

[Jack4freedom]

Ok. We can go with that. So, IF we see a major red wave in November, then the loser should concede without hesitation? We can expect that to happen this fall, correct?

If the Dems pull a Trump, I will be the first to call them on it. I don’t mind recounts, court challenges etc. What Trump did was way above and beyond that. It was criminal.

 

[worldlymrb]

In any close election, it is not unusual for the loser to call for recounts or present credible evidence that the count was wrong. However it is unusual for the loser to call and pressure State Election officials to “find 10,000 votes for me” or to organize a violent mob designed to stop or delay the EC count. If the Democrats lose in November and pull any of the kind of shit Trump pulled, I will fully support a thorough investigation into their antics and call for the criminals to be prosecuted.

Recounts are a waste of time. One small example, a precinct had Biden get over 100 ballots from alleged voters who were born in the 1800s.

A recount just counts the same fraudulent ballots over again.

 

[middleview]

The hope of being able to prove all those things against Trump is probably why they aren't allowing any cross examination. They don't dare let people hear 'the rest of the story' because the truth doesn't fit their agenda. They're so afraid that Trump might get into power again and expose more of their corruption.

BTW cross examination is what they do in a real hearing.

This is not a court. There is no guilty or innocent finding about to happen. If they refer charges to the DOJ then Trump's attorneys will have their day in court.

Hearings usually are not conducted as if they were a trial.

 

[Boca]

While admittedly I haven't heard all of the one-sided hearing about 1/6 yet, at least the parts they've presented so far, but there is one thing that keeps being said over and over. That is they keep saying that Prez Trump was trying to overturn the election. According to everything I've seem the election had not been completed yet. He was trying to send the electoral information back to the states to review for corrections.

The election was not complete until it was certified, that being part of the process, so he was not trying to overturn something that had not been completed.

In regards to my post #34,,,,,,,,,,he we go again!

MSN

www.msn.com

It will never end