2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[old salt]

Great embedded video clip from Rep Dan Crenshaw.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capito ... ruz-hawley

The Texas Republican came to the defense of Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

"Let me be as clear as possible here. Senator Cruz and Hawley, I disagree with them in a fundamental way about the constitutionality of this process on January 6th, [and] the ability of Congress to overturn any electoral votes, period, " Crenshaw told host Martha MacCallum.

"But," he continued, "let's be very honest. Senator Cruz and Senator Hawley were not hyping up January 6th. They were not calling for people to fight in the streets. They were not saying this is the last stand. That being said, many members of Congress did do that. Many commentators did do that. Many in the media have been doing that, for the last few weeks, saying constantly [that] this is our time to fight."

"They've been lying that Jan. 6th was going to be this big solution for election integrity -- and it was never going to be."

"They've been lying to people, lying to millions," Crenshaw went on. "They've been lying that January 6th was going to be this big solution for election integrity, and it was never going to be.

"It was never going to solve anything and it was always unconstitutional."

The real battle to preserve election integrity must be fought "at the state level," Crenshaw said. "That’s where you solve the important question of election integrity, and they lied to people saying, 'Fight, go fight, because everything's on the line.'"

[a fan]

Some of my questions answered

Buh bye

Every time I think that this party, and these people, can't be bigger pieces of *hit....... they outdo themselves.

I'll say it again: if you Republicans think that your party is going to turn away from this path, and start acting like the responsible conservatives that our country needs DESPERATELY now that Trump is leaving the White House, you're mistaken.

It's going to get worse. Much, much worse.

[a fan]

The real battle to preserve election integrity must be fought "at the state level," Crenshaw said. "That’s where you solve the important question of election integrity

Great news. What is your party going to do about it?

Just as I told you after the last stupid election, your party controls 22 States soup to nuts. They can do ANYTHING they want with their elections.

Wanna take my 2016 wager again? That Republicans won't make their elections "secure" to Old Salt's fake standards?

[MDlaxfan76]

The mob assaulted the Capitol because Trump incited them to do so, not because of the Senators who objected.
The counting of Electors would still have taken place on Jan 6th, & the mob would still have rioted to try to stop it, because Trump told them it would.
The Senators were trying to focus attention on the irregularities in this election, so they'ii be addressed before the next election.
The riot disrupted their harmless effort which needed to be no more controversial than previous objections.

You are correct that the Inciter-In-Chief is Trump, but no, every single one of the a-holes who claim that the election was fraudulent, stolen, won in a landslide... or just whine about "irregularities" and "election integrity" in order to reverse an election, the outcome of which they didn't like, are ALL complicit in the incitement. Their responsibility is measured in the size of their microphone and the oaths they've taken. The Senators have big microphones and took an oath, and they know better...and then there's Hannity...

And everyone else spouting this destructive nonsense.

EDIT: Including you as I see in the post immediately below.
"not dispositive"? "hurried court cases"? what a joke. 60 strikes and you still don't know you struck out.

[DocBarrister]

The Senators were trying to focus attention on the irregularities in this election

Which do not exist, per the ~60 or so judges, including SCOTUS, that reviewed them.

We'll see. Hurried court cases, based on limited time & evidence are not dispositive.
70 million voters want the evidence examined more closely. The issue now moves to the states.

You are part of the problem.

The Senators, like Trump, propagated false claims of election irregularities, fraud, and a “stolen” election ... all lies. They, and the 140 or so Republicans in the House, are as much to blame as Trump for the travesty at the Capitol yesterday.

You need to stop your lies, too. That kind of dishonest trash does not belong on this forum, especially after the disgraceful events yesterday ... a day that will truly endure in infamy.

DocBarrister

[njbill]

The mob assaulted the Capitol because Trump incited them to do so, not because of the Senators who objected.
The counting of Electors would still have taken place on Jan 6th, & the mob would still have rioted to try to stop it, because Trump told them it would.
The Senators were trying to focus attention on the irregularities in this election, so they'ii be addressed before the next election.
The riot disrupted their harmless effort which needed to be no more controversial than previous objections.

Those are two separate, but related, wrongs. T****’s inciting violence obviously was the direct cause, but if the members of Congress had said they were simply going to follow their constitutional duty yesterday, there would have been no reason for T****’s rally.

I’ve said this before, but the members of Congress who raised objections were acting illegally. There was no basis under the statute for them to object. The statute permits objections in very limited circumstances, which didn’t apply yesterday.

In terms of the perceived irregularities in the election, the process in this country is to resolve them either through the state election boards or the courts. All of the election boards checked and rechecked the results. Some conducted recounts. Their work was as extensive and as exhaustive as was required. There were no undue time constraints imposed on their work.

As to “delays” in the court cases, T**** caused many of them by filing the suits weeks or more after he could’ve done so. The ridiculous Texas lawsuit was filed in the United States Supreme Court five weeks after the election. Why wasn’t it filed, say, on November 15?

To the extent the cases were timely filed, many involved legal issues which were easily resolvable within the relatively short time frames available. As to cases that involved factual issues, T**** had the burden of coming forward with relevant and admissible evidence. He either failed to do so (much of his “proof” was inadmissible hearsay) or, if he did, the other side made a more convincing opposing factual showing.

In any event, while the time frames for resolving judicial disputes are somewhat short, that’s the system we have. It applies to both parties, and has for over two centuries. There are statutory and constitutional deadlines (e.g. January 20) which must be met. If a candidate cannot prove his case and get the relief he desires within these time frames, he is SOL.

Lastly, elections are controlled by the states, not the Congress. That’s yet another reason why the members of Congress have no right to try to get their noses under the tent.

From what I understand, many states are reviewing their electoral processes following the 2020 election. I have previously written that I follow what goes on in Pennsylvania since I live in the Philadelphia media market. The legislature, the governor, and the Secretary of State are all keenly interested in addressing some of the issues that came up in Pennsylvania. Hopefully they will do so and will write clear legislation closing the gaps and tightening any loopholes.

Bottom line is that it is up to the states to fix their own electoral processes. This election is over. If improvements can be made for next time, let’s make them.

[old salt]

The mob assaulted the Capitol because Trump incited them to do so, not because of the Senators who objected.
The counting of Electors would still have taken place on Jan 6th, & the mob would still have rioted to try to stop it, because Trump told them it would.
The Senators were trying to focus attention on the irregularities in this election, so they'ii be addressed before the next election.
The riot disrupted their harmless effort which needed to be no more controversial than previous objections.

You are correct that the Inciter-In-Chief is Trump, but no, every single one of the a-holes who claim that the election was fraudulent, stolen, won in a landslide... or just whine about "irregularities" and "election integrity" in order to reverse an election, the outcome of which they didn't like, are ALL complicit in the incitement. Their responsibility is measured in the size of their microphone and the oaths they've taken. The Senators have big microphones and took an oath, and they know better...and then there's Hannity...

And everyone else spouting this destructive nonsense.

EDIT: Including you as I see in the post immediately below.
"not dispositive"? "hurried court cases"? what a joke. 60 strikes and you still don't know you struck out.

Show me the words of Hawley, Langford, even Cruz, or any of the other Senators who said the election was "fradulent, stolen, or won in a landslide." You're putting Trump's words in their mouths. You are being dishonest. What they did is no different than Boxer objecting based on long voting lines in Ohio.

[MDlaxfan76]

The mob assaulted the Capitol because Trump incited them to do so, not because of the Senators who objected.
The counting of Electors would still have taken place on Jan 6th, & the mob would still have rioted to try to stop it, because Trump told them it would.
The Senators were trying to focus attention on the irregularities in this election, so they'ii be addressed before the next election.
The riot disrupted their harmless effort which needed to be no more controversial than previous objections.

You are correct that the Inciter-In-Chief is Trump, but no, every single one of the a-holes who claim that the election was fraudulent, stolen, won in a landslide... or just whine about "irregularities" and "election integrity" in order to reverse an election, the outcome of which they didn't like, are ALL complicit in the incitement. Their responsibility is measured in the size of their microphone and the oaths they've taken. The Senators have big microphones and took an oath, and they know better...and then there's Hannity...

And everyone else spouting this destructive nonsense.

EDIT: Including you as I see in the post immediately below.
"not dispositive"? "hurried court cases"? what a joke. 60 strikes and you still don't know you struck out.

Show me the words of Hawley, Langford, even Cruz, or any of the other Senators who said the election was "fradulent, stolen, or won in a landslide. What they're doing is no different than Boxer objecting based on long voting lines in Ohio.

See above...they are ALL complicit.

When Boxer objected there was no scheduled protest, no claim by the contestant that they had won the election, no calls to overturn the election by the contestant, indeed the contestant (Kerry) had long, long before conceded.

This was a knowing incitement of the protestors, those who believe all the lies.

[old salt]

The mob assaulted the Capitol because Trump incited them to do so, not because of the Senators who objected.
The counting of Electors would still have taken place on Jan 6th, & the mob would still have rioted to try to stop it, because Trump told them it would.
The Senators were trying to focus attention on the irregularities in this election, so they'ii be addressed before the next election.
The riot disrupted their harmless effort which needed to be no more controversial than previous objections.

You are correct that the Inciter-In-Chief is Trump, but no, every single one of the a-holes who claim that the election was fraudulent, stolen, won in a landslide... or just whine about "irregularities" and "election integrity" in order to reverse an election, the outcome of which they didn't like, are ALL complicit in the incitement. Their responsibility is measured in the size of their microphone and the oaths they've taken. The Senators have big microphones and took an oath, and they know better...and then there's Hannity...

And everyone else spouting this destructive nonsense.

EDIT: Including you as I see in the post immediately below.
"not dispositive"? "hurried court cases"? what a joke. 60 strikes and you still don't know you struck out.

Show me the words of Hawley, Langford, even Cruz, or any of the other Senators who said the election was "fradulent, stolen, or won in a landslide. What they're doing is no different than Boxer objecting based on long voting lines in Ohio.

Show me their words, not yours (again). Every one of them said they did not expect to change the outcome of the election. Apparently you didn't bother to read or listen to their statements.

[MDlaxfan76]

The mob assaulted the Capitol because Trump incited them to do so, not because of the Senators who objected.
The counting of Electors would still have taken place on Jan 6th, & the mob would still have rioted to try to stop it, because Trump told them it would.
The Senators were trying to focus attention on the irregularities in this election, so they'ii be addressed before the next election.
The riot disrupted their harmless effort which needed to be no more controversial than previous objections.

You are correct that the Inciter-In-Chief is Trump, but no, every single one of the a-holes who claim that the election was fraudulent, stolen, won in a landslide... or just whine about "irregularities" and "election integrity" in order to reverse an election, the outcome of which they didn't like, are ALL complicit in the incitement. Their responsibility is measured in the size of their microphone and the oaths they've taken. The Senators have big microphones and took an oath, and they know better...and then there's Hannity...

And everyone else spouting this destructive nonsense.

EDIT: Including you as I see in the post immediately below.
"not dispositive"? "hurried court cases"? what a joke. 60 strikes and you still don't know you struck out.

Show me the words of Hawley, Langford, even Cruz, or any of the other Senators who said the election was "fradulent, stolen, or won in a landslide. What they're doing is no different than Boxer objecting based on long voting lines in Ohio.

Show me their words, not yours (again). Every one of them said they did not expect to change the outcome of the election. Apparently you didn't bother to read or listen to their statements.

Nope I did both.

See above...they are ALL complicit. Harder to nail'em in court than Trump and Guiliani and Don Jr and some others, but yeah, fully complicit.

When Boxer objected there was no scheduled protest, no claim by the contestant that they had won the election, no calls to overturn the election by the contestant, indeed the contestant (Kerry) had long, long before conceded.

This was a knowing incitement of the protestors, those who believe all the lies.

[old salt]

I’ve said this before, but the members of Congress who raised objections were acting illegally. There was no basis under the statute for them to object. The statute permits objections in very limited circumstances, which didn’t apply yesterday.

Was it illegal for Boxer to raise an objection in 04, or all the Reps to raise objections in other years ? How about the objections to the faithless elector ?

[MDlaxfan76]

I’ve said this before, but the members of Congress who raised objections were acting illegally. There was no basis under the statute for them to object. The statute permits objections in very limited circumstances, which didn’t apply yesterday.

Was it illegal for Boxer to raise an objection in 04, or all the Reps to raise objections in other years ? How about the objections to the faithless elector ?

Raising an objection was not illegal. Encouragement of insurrection is.

When Boxer objected there was no scheduled protest, no claim by the contestant that they had won the election, no calls to overturn the election by the contestant, indeed the contestant (Kerry) had long, long before conceded.

This was a knowing incitement of the protestors, those who believe all the lies.

going to bed.

[old salt]

The mob assaulted the Capitol because Trump incited them to do so, not because of the Senators who objected.
The counting of Electors would still have taken place on Jan 6th, & the mob would still have rioted to try to stop it, because Trump told them it would.
The Senators were trying to focus attention on the irregularities in this election, so they'ii be addressed before the next election.
The riot disrupted their harmless effort which needed to be no more controversial than previous objections.

You are correct that the Inciter-In-Chief is Trump, but no, every single one of the a-holes who claim that the election was fraudulent, stolen, won in a landslide... or just whine about "irregularities" and "election integrity" in order to reverse an election, the outcome of which they didn't like, are ALL complicit in the incitement. Their responsibility is measured in the size of their microphone and the oaths they've taken. The Senators have big microphones and took an oath, and they know better...and then there's Hannity...

And everyone else spouting this destructive nonsense.

EDIT: Including you as I see in the post immediately below.
"not dispositive"? "hurried court cases"? what a joke. 60 strikes and you still don't know you struck out.

Show me the words of Hawley, Langford, even Cruz, or any of the other Senators who said the election was "fradulent, stolen, or won in a landslide. What they're doing is no different than Boxer objecting based on long voting lines in Ohio.

Show me their words, not yours (again). Every one of them said they did not expect to change the outcome of the election. Apparently you didn't bother to read or listen to their statements.

Nope I did both.

See above...they are ALL complicit. Harder to nail'em in court than Trump and Guiliani and Don Jr and some others, but yeah, fully complicit.

When Boxer objected there was no scheduled protest, no claim by the contestant that they had won the election, no calls to overturn the election by the contestant, indeed the contestant (Kerry) had long, long before conceded.

This was a knowing incitement of the protestors, those who believe all the lies.

So you think the Senators expected a mob to storm the Capitol & for it to be undefended ? Counting the Electors on Jan 6th was on the schedule long before Trump called for the rally. How could they have expected it if Congressional leaders didn't even expect it enough to take any extra security precautions ?

[old salt]

I’ve said this before, but the members of Congress who raised objections were acting illegally. There was no basis under the statute for them to object. The statute permits objections in very limited circumstances, which didn’t apply yesterday.

Was it illegal for Boxer to raise an objection in 04, or all the Reps to raise objections in other years ? How about the objections to the faithless elector ?

Raising an objection was not illegal. Encouragement of insurrection is.

When Boxer objected there was no scheduled protest, no claim by the contestant that they had won the election, no calls to overturn the election by the contestant, indeed the contestant (Kerry) had long, long before conceded.

This was a knowing incitement of the protestors, those who believe all the lies.

going to bed.

Show us the words of any of the Senators inciting an insurrection.
Please include their affirmations that they did not expect to change the outcome.

[njbill]

I’ve said this before, but the members of Congress who raised objections were acting illegally. There was no basis under the statute for them to object. The statute permits objections in very limited circumstances, which didn’t apply yesterday.

Was it illegal for Boxer to raise an objection in 04, or all the Reps to raise objections in other years ? How about the objections to the faithless elector ?

Don't remember those occurrences from back then, but if your recent recountings of them are correct, then it appears the answer is "yes.'' So they shouldn't have objected either. Two key differences though. One, the presidential candidate had conceded and was not supporting the objections. Two, in past instances I don't believe 100+ Reps objected. Concededly that doesn't change the question of legality, but does put the objections in a different context.

Not familiar with the faithless objector situation. Are you saying a Senator or Rep objected on Jan. 6 to faithless objectors under this statute? If so, maybe the objection would be illegal. But now the SC has ruled faithless objectors are a no-no so perhaps that changes things. Not sure.

Edit to add: Raising objections when the objector has no good faith belief that the objections are permitted by the applicable statute is illegal in the sense that the objections are not authorized by law. Not criminal though, as I have said previously.

[old salt]

I’ve said this before, but the members of Congress who raised objections were acting illegally. There was no basis under the statute for them to object. The statute permits objections in very limited circumstances, which didn’t apply yesterday.

Was it illegal for Boxer to raise an objection in 04, or all the Reps to raise objections in other years ? How about the objections to the faithless elector ?

Don't remember those occurrences from back then, but if your recent recountings of them are correct, then it appears the answer is "yes.'' So they shouldn't have objected either. Two key differences though. One, the presidential candidate had conceded and was not supporting the objections. Two, in past instances I don't believe 100+ Reps objected. Concededly that doesn't change the question of legality, but does put the objections in a different context.

Not familiar with the faithless objector situation. Are you saying a Senator or Rep objected on Jan. 6 to faithless objectors under this statute? If so, maybe the objection would be illegal. But now the SC has ruled faithless objectors are a no-no so perhaps that changes things. Not sure.

Edit to add: Raising objections when the objector has no good faith belief that the objections are permitted by the applicable statute is illegal in the sense that the objections are not authorized by law. Not criminal though, as I have said previously.

1968 -- faithless elector
https://history.house.gov/Blog/2020/Nov ... -Electors/

[cradleandshoot]

The south shall rise again!

https://www.businessinsider.com/photo-t ... 2021-1?amp

The only thing rising in the south will be those homemade biscuits.

[cradleandshoot]

On a sad note one of the capital hill police involved in the protest Wednesday passed away last night. It was an apparent heart attack.

[cradleandshoot]

I remember taking a trip down memory road to a place called Kent State University. I find it interesting that so many FLP folks here are now balls to the walls to now use the NG to now supplement law enforcement. The NG is not a police force. News flash for you FLP folks. The NG primary mission is to augment our military in times of war. They are not, and should never be used to augment law enforcement. They have no legal controlling authority to play the role of law enforcement. Their primary mission is to defend the country and augment our armed forces when needed. All you FLP do remember what happened at Kent State? Law enforcement is not and should not be the mission of the National Guard.

[seacoaster]

Criminal:

https://twitter.com/Cleavon_MD/status/1 ... 3323394048