Have they? Like, House and Senate members have shown their hands and there's a threat of a majority voting to overturn the results of the electoral college?
You sure?
Yes, there was a whole bunch of them signing on to an amicus brief for the Texas lawsuit to throw out the votes for Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan. This was before the Electoral College voted, but their actions to disenfranchise these voters would have changed things for the Electoral College.
Perhaps this counts as showing their hand regarding their intentions on January 6. I see the Texas case as the likely high water mark, though, since there was almost no consequence for signing on to that. Voting to reject the votes of a state in favor of either alternative electors or to not have a state's votes counted due to claimed irregularities is putting much more political capital on the line and there would be consequences for that. But maybe not. Maybe the 100 or so congresspersons and the couple of Senators who think it's safe to challenge on th grounds it isn't likely to go anywhere will find themselves reliving 2016 and finding they talked themselves into a deal with the devil where they get enough Senators to sign on to force Pence to decide the results...and then...yeah.
But I don't think that's the case and the signals are there will be challenges with consequences of their own, but no where near a majority that would result in the election going to Trump.
Yes, there was a whole bunch of them signing on to an amicus brief for the Texas lawsuit to throw out the votes for Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan. This was before the Electoral College voted, but their actions to disenfranchise these voters would have changed things for the Electoral College.
Trump voters:
"Here is 100 votes"
Biden voters:
"Here is 50 votes"
....
...
Biden voters:
"Wait! we just found 500 votes under this table....when no one was looking....late last night."
Trump voters:
"That is suspicious, we should investigate"
Biden voters:
"AAAaaarrrghhh! you just want to disenfranchise 500 voters.....you must be racist."
I've come to realize people like you are incapable of distinguishing innuendo from fact. See Exhibit A above. It's why folks like you imagine the existence of affidavits carries more weight than the actions of the courts that reviewed those affidavits and dismissed the cases they were attached to without much regard. I have a Facebook friend who hasn't read the actual content of a single court case finding or the affidavits in question yet was adamant he was being logical in assessing the situation as a conspiracy against Trump due to similar thinking. If your epistemological approach is that broken, as evidenced above, the argument isn't benefited by debating details.
...the existence of affidavits carries more weight than the actions of the courts that reviewed those affidavits and dismissed the cases they were attached to without much regard. ...
CFR for any case that had affidavits reviewed by the judge and then judge dismissed same case with a "disregard" for those affidavits.
I can wait for your response, even though "people like you" usually avoid fact based responses.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
...the existence of affidavits carries more weight than the actions of the courts that reviewed those affidavits and dismissed the cases they were attached to without much regard. ...
CFR for any case that had affidavits reviewed by the judge and then judge dismissed same case with a "disregard" for those affidavits.
I can wait for your response, even though "people like you" usually avoid fact based responses.
The Trump campaign should give thanks to Almighty Gawd that not all of their affidavits have yet to be reviewed by the court, considering how many of them are trash.
...the existence of affidavits carries more weight than the actions of the courts that reviewed those affidavits and dismissed the cases they were attached to without much regard. ...
CFR for any case that had affidavits reviewed by the judge and then judge dismissed same case with a "disregard" for those affidavits.
I can wait for your response, even though "people like you" usually avoid fact based responses.
The Trump campaign has repeatedly cited the hundreds of sworn affidavits it has assembled. It has even shown stacks of them to illustrate the supposed heft of its legal case. Many of them are not available because they haven’t been filed in actual lawsuits or made available publicly. (Giuliani cited the alleged targeting of their authors for keeping them obscured.)
But among the witnesses who have had their allegations aired in court, many have been dismissed by judges as inadmissible or not credible. One particularly high-profile one alleged many precincts in Michigan had more votes than actual voters, but shortly after Giuliani et al. raised the issue Thursday — alongside their pleas to take the affidavits seriously — it fell apart.
CFR for any case that had affidavits reviewed by the judge and then judge dismissed same case with a "disregard" for those affidavits.
I can wait for your response, even though "people like you" usually avoid fact based responses.
The Trump campaign should give thanks to Almighty Gawd that not all of their affidavits have yet to be reviewed by the court, considering how many of them are trash.
wow, Washington Post.
I knew you would affirm honor's inadequacies in the matter.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
The Trump campaign should give thanks to Almighty Gawd that not all of their affidavits have yet to be reviewed by the court, considering how many of them are trash.
From the Washington Post story, here’s one of the simple facts reported:
The list of precincts next to their alleged over-voters is striking. But what was also striking to my fellow Minnesotans at Powerline was that those sound a lot like cities and towns in Minnesota. And indeed they are. It even lists the Minnesota precincts not just as if they are in Michigan, but specifically in Wayne County. The text states that, in Wayne County, “25 of those 47 precincts/townships show 100% turnout.” But it then lists 25 precincts from Minnesota.
Hey, that renders your ‘shoot the messenger’ argument meaningless, but you probably don’t want to pretend that you have the wits to debate the content anyway. And you won’t.
Honor, I’ve tried very hard to distinguish between what Congress can do and what it legally can do. I listened to the full two hours of debate on the House side, and there was mention of an election challenge that was still pending in court. That tells me the result wasn’t protected by the Safe Harbor provision.
The 2004 objection illustrates the distinction I am drawing. An objection was filed and a debate was held. But the objection violated the election statute, as at least one Republican mentioned. It was illegal because it was not within the “may” clause of Section 15 and was within the “may not” clause. The Democrats, including minority leader Nancy Pelosi admitted that the purpose of the two hours of the debate was not to actually try and overturn Ohio’s slate of electors but to address more general problems that resulted in some folks from being shut out of the process.
But however the righteousness of the cause, the objectionable and two hours of debate violated the election statute. It was a political stunt. Why didn’t the Republicans try to have Cheney rule the objection to be improper? I suspect because it was more politically advantageous to spend two hours portraying the Democrats as sore losers, wild eyed conspiracy theorists, and elected officials attacking the integrity of election officials and undermining American’s confidence in its election systems. (What a difference 16 years makes...) than in preventing members of the black Congressional caucus from airing their grievances.
More importantly, the election results were not at stake. Kerry conceded on election night. He refused to join the objection. It wasn’t a serious attempt to change Ohio’s results, let alone change the results of the election. Both sides recognized it for what it was, and used the opportunity for political gain rather than talk about the rules. I don’t think 2004 is any sort of precedent for what would happen in a serious effort to change the results of an election.
So, yes, it is possible that an objection is made. There’s no Practical way to stop that from happening. But the fact that an objection is made does not mean that it is a legal objection under the statute. As things sit now, Section 6 requires the votes of electors certified by the Governor to be counted. That’s what the statute says.
The question is how those in charge would react to an invalid objection. If McConnell has calculated that having Republicans actually vote against Trump would be very damaging, Pence could simply read Section 6 and declare the objection invalid. Or, the heads of the two chambers could already have had motions ready to dismiss the objection as invalid and return after 1 minute. Or, each house could pass rules in advance that any objection that violates Sections 5 or 6 are declared in advance to be invalid. Or, Nancy Pelosi could drop a lawsuit and emergency motion for a TRO with the Local federal court. Or one or both houses could simply refuse to consider the objection on the grounds that it is not a permissible objection under Sections 5, 6, and 15.
If a substantial threat existed that the Relief Society would pull out all the stops to steal the election, I have no doubt that the Ds would be invoking Sections 5 and 6 to try and block the effort. And that effort may well include seeking judicial declarations in advance that Congress may not object to electors protected by the Safe Harbor Act. But if the Ds are confident that the Senate Relief Society will not support any such attempt, the Ds will very likely do whatever they think helps them politically.
But none of these decisions about enforcement or remedies changes the fact that there are limitations on what constitutes an objection under Section 15, that the Safe Harbor provision is one of those limitations, and that the Safe Harbor provision is absolute by its clear terms.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
...the existence of affidavits carries more weight than the actions of the courts that reviewed those affidavits and dismissed the cases they were attached to without much regard. ...
CFR for any case that had affidavits reviewed by the judge and then judge dismissed same case with a "disregard" for those affidavits.
I can wait for your response, even though "people like you" usually avoid fact based responses.
And an article regarding the dismissal of the case directly above from a Georgia Fox affiliate so you don't hurt yourself bending over backwards trying to matrix-dodge based on source dismissal:
That's just a few examples, subbie. You can find them if you have genuine concern for the republic and want to know how well our institutions are protecting us from the attack on our system of government being waged by the outgoing President. I'm sure that's your real concern so you should feel a bit of relief.
