What January 6th was all about

[kyzr]

Wrong again.

LIAR.

 

[Mac1958]

Nope. It was about trump trying to overthrow an election, already decided by the voters of the many states. The procedures are in the constitution he no longer supports, even though he took an oath to it. An oath from trump doesn't mean much. Just ask his wives.

Interesting that they’re trying to explain it now. That tells you something.

 

[forkup]

It was Trump trying to use the 1887 Electoral Count Act. People were merely protesting what they saw as an invalid election result.

Nothing more.


What is the Electoral Act of 1887?

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA) (Pub.L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373,[1] later codified at Title 3, Chapter 1[2]) is a United States federal law adding to procedures set out in the Constitution of the United States for the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election. The Act was enacted by Congress in 1887, ten years after the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock for weeks.[3] Close elections in 1880 and 1884 followed, and again raised the possibility that with no formally established counting procedure in place partisans in Congress might use the counting process to force a desired result.[4]

The Act aims to minimize congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states.[4][5] The Act sets out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state follows these "safe harbor" standards and the state's governor properly submits one set of electoral votes, the Act states that that "final" determination "shall govern."[6][7] However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements. The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act's procedures.[8] Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not "regularly given."[8][9]


The counting of ballots under the act made the cover of the first issue of Newsweek in 1933
The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election.[8] Since the bill was enacted, some have doubted whether the Act can bind a future Congress.[9] Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session.[10] In the contentious 2000 presidential election, the law's timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore. The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible."[11]: 643  Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "ts central provisions seem contradictory."[12]: 543 

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President (as President of the Senate) opens the electoral certificates. The Act clarifies the Vice President's limited role in the count.[4][8][9] Both houses can overrule the Vice President's decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie. On many occasions, the Vice President has had the duty of finalizing his party's – or his own – defeat. Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.[13][14]

Nixon in 1961 made a ruling allowing late-filed votes against him.[15] In 1969, Hubert Humphrey recused himself from the count.[16] Gore in 2001,[17] Biden in 2017,[18] and Pence in 2021[19] all rejected many challenges to certifying the results of elections that their party lost.

Currently, Congress is seeing to it that this act never gets used.

But instead of saying they are doing away with the act, they are saying democrats will "reform" it.

MSN

This was the "insurrection". Trump was merely trying to use the laws at hand to address the validity of the election results.





This is information you will never find in the news because they don't want you to be educated. That way they can twist information and lie about it without much effort.

Nice piece of revisionist history.

Can you please explain to me why an alternative slate of electors was sent then? Considering Trump simply applied a law that was put on the books to prevent exactly such a thing?

 

[Votto]

Nice piece of revisionist history.

Can you please explain to me why an alternative slate of electors was sent then? Considering Trump simply applied a law that was put on the books to prevent exactly such a thing?

Here is the deal, if you really believe that a Viking and unarmed woman was trying to overthrow the US of A then fine.

You people are idiots.

 

[forkup]

Here is the deal, if you really believe that a Viking and unarmed woman was trying to overthrow the US of A then fine.

You people are idiots.

Here's the deal. No I don't believe a Viking or an unarmed man can do such a thing. I do believe the losing president supported by a sufficiently pliable legislative branch can.

That was the overarching goal on Jan 6th. Use every and all means. Lawful, unlawful and everything in between to prevent the winner of the election from taking power.

That was the goal of those alternate electors. The idea that the vice president can stop the certification of the results. The actual insurrection. The idea that the DOJ, or the DOD or Homeland security could confiscate the election machines, the 60 plus lawsuits all lost without changing any Republican minds that he lost. All of it.

And it is still happening. And if Trump wins there will be no people in his administration that will prevent him from doing so again, because they will not be elected or nominated in this GOP.

That's how Democracy dies in the US. Not by a Viking or a woman, but by having convinced people that burying it is a patriotic act.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[BlindBoo]

It was Trump trying to use the 1887 Electoral Count Act. People were merely protesting what they saw as an invalid election result.

Nothing more.


What is the Electoral Act of 1887?

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA) (Pub.L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373,[1] later codified at Title 3, Chapter 1[2]) is a United States federal law adding to procedures set out in the Constitution of the United States for the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election. The Act was enacted by Congress in 1887, ten years after the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock for weeks.[3] Close elections in 1880 and 1884 followed, and again raised the possibility that with no formally established counting procedure in place partisans in Congress might use the counting process to force a desired result.[4]

The Act aims to minimize congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states.[4][5] The Act sets out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state follows these "safe harbor" standards and the state's governor properly submits one set of electoral votes, the Act states that that "final" determination "shall govern."[6][7] However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements. The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act's procedures.[8] Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not "regularly given."[8][9]


The counting of ballots under the act made the cover of the first issue of Newsweek in 1933
The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election.[8] Since the bill was enacted, some have doubted whether the Act can bind a future Congress.[9] Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session.[10] In the contentious 2000 presidential election, the law's timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore. The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible."[11]: 643  Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "ts central provisions seem contradictory."[12]: 543 

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President (as President of the Senate) opens the electoral certificates. The Act clarifies the Vice President's limited role in the count.[4][8][9] Both houses can overrule the Vice President's decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie. On many occasions, the Vice President has had the duty of finalizing his party's – or his own – defeat. Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.[13][14]

Nixon in 1961 made a ruling allowing late-filed votes against him.[15] In 1969, Hubert Humphrey recused himself from the count.[16] Gore in 2001,[17] Biden in 2017,[18] and Pence in 2021[19] all rejected many challenges to certifying the results of elections that their party lost.

Currently, Congress is seeing to it that this act never gets used.

But instead of saying they are doing away with the act, they are saying democrats will "reform" it.

MSN

This was the "insurrection". Trump was merely trying to use the laws at hand to address the validity of the election results.





This is information you will never find in the news because they don't want you to be educated. That way they can twist information and lie about it without much effort.

It was Trump and his Neo-GOP trying to produce the corrupt outcome of overturning the valid election results using that Act in a multi-state conspiracy. When Pence refused to implement the illegal procedure, Trump stepped up his vitriolic, verbal assaults and encouraged his followers to fight like hell an such throughout the last 50 minutes of his sermon that morning. Sending them into a frenzy when they reached the Capitol Building.

 

[Votto]

It was Trump and his Neo-GOP trying to produce the corrupt outcome of overturning the valid election results using that Act in a multi-state conspiracy. When Pence refused to implement the illegal procedure, Trump stepped up his vitriolic, verbal assaults and encouraged his followers to fight like hell an such throughout the last 50 minutes of his sermon that morning. Sending them into a frenzy when they reached the Capitol Building.

Trump was trying to push a recount and the states to get involved.

That is all.

There was no attempted take over of America.

But the press is corrupt and will only post that Trump is Hitler.

I understand.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Bullshit.

Prove me wrong with facts.

 

[Oddball]

It was Trump trying to use the 1887 Electoral Count Act. People were merely protesting what they saw as an invalid election result.

Nothing more.


What is the Electoral Act of 1887?

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA) (Pub.L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373,[1] later codified at Title 3, Chapter 1[2]) is a United States federal law adding to procedures set out in the Constitution of the United States for the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election. The Act was enacted by Congress in 1887, ten years after the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock for weeks.[3] Close elections in 1880 and 1884 followed, and again raised the possibility that with no formally established counting procedure in place partisans in Congress might use the counting process to force a desired result.[4]

The Act aims to minimize congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states.[4][5] The Act sets out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state follows these "safe harbor" standards and the state's governor properly submits one set of electoral votes, the Act states that that "final" determination "shall govern."[6][7] However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements. The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act's procedures.[8] Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not "regularly given."[8][9]


The counting of ballots under the act made the cover of the first issue of Newsweek in 1933
The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election.[8] Since the bill was enacted, some have doubted whether the Act can bind a future Congress.[9] Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session.[10] In the contentious 2000 presidential election, the law's timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore. The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible."[11]: 643  Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "ts central provisions seem contradictory."[12]: 543 

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President (as President of the Senate) opens the electoral certificates. The Act clarifies the Vice President's limited role in the count.[4][8][9] Both houses can overrule the Vice President's decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie. On many occasions, the Vice President has had the duty of finalizing his party's – or his own – defeat. Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.[13][14]

Nixon in 1961 made a ruling allowing late-filed votes against him.[15] In 1969, Hubert Humphrey recused himself from the count.[16] Gore in 2001,[17] Biden in 2017,[18] and Pence in 2021[19] all rejected many challenges to certifying the results of elections that their party lost.

Currently, Congress is seeing to it that this act never gets used.

But instead of saying they are doing away with the act, they are saying democrats will "reform" it.

MSN

This was the "insurrection". Trump was merely trying to use the laws at hand to address the validity of the election results.





This is information you will never find in the news because they don't want you to be educated. That way they can twist information and lie about it without much effort.

What January 6th was all about​

It was a psyop aimed at ending the state-by-state objections, preventing the fraud from being documented into the congressional record, and jamming through the electoral count for a fraudulently elected, illegitimate, senile marionette as "president".

I'm here to help.

 

[BlindBoo]

Trump was trying to push a recount and the states to get involved.

That is all.

There was no attempted take over of America.

That process goes though the courts in the various states. He was trying to influence state election officials to change the results not petition the court for another recount

But the press is corrupt and will only post that Trump is Hitler.

The poor poor trumpyvictim. They all hates him.

 

[White 6]

You people were all about Biden to not accept the results of the election had he lost. DC businesses boarded up their shops the week leading up to the election based on Leftist violence that began on Trump’s Inauguration Day and was replete throughout 2020. Biden won, so DC businesses were spared.

Your horse is not that high and you are standing in sand.

You got the wrong people. Maybe you meant those people or them people. I have always believed in election results and still do. Wanting something different does not change reality.

 

[White 6]

Interesting that they’re trying to explain it now. That tells you something.

Just trying to talk it away. It doesn't change what they were trying to do in any way or rebrand it, just making excuses. They need to shut up, accept what they did as an Un-American illegal attempt to overthrow an election, drop support for any that participated or spoke in support of the attempt, especially Trump or Trumpist politicians seeking higher office, including the presidency.

 

[Lastamender]

View attachment 598224

Projection.

 

[Mac1958]

Just trying to talk it away. It doesn't change what they were trying to do in any way or rebrand it, just making excuses. They need to shut up, accept what they did as an Un-American illegal attempt to overthrow an election, drop support for any that participated or spoke in support of the attempt, especially Trump or Trumpist politicians seeking higher office, including the presidency.

Their conditioning is to minimize and dismiss it, because that's what the MAGA media does, and that where they get not only their opinions, but their "facts" and their very fucking thought processes. Okay, that's fine.

From what I'm seeing, the congressional committee is approaching this in a way that no congressional committee has approached an issue before. Evidently they're using all the same strategies, resources and sourcing that they would be for terrorist organizations. And while the DOJ sure seems a little constipated on all this, it's also possible they're carefully and methodically getting all their ducks in a row. That's Garland's reputation.

There is not much doubt as to what happened. This isn't about the rubes pooping on the walls and battering cops on Jan 6. This really is, literally, seditious conspiracy. We'll see if these people are held accountable or not, but the bullshit from the Trumpsters is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Lastamender]

Their conditioning is to minimize and dismiss it, because that's what the MAGA media does, and that where they get not only their opinions, but their "facts" and their very fucking thought processes. Okay, that's fine.

From what I'm seeing, the congressional committee is approaching this in a way that no congressional committee has approached an issue before. Evidently they're using all the same strategies, resources and sourcing that they would be for terrorist organizations. And while the DOJ sure seems a little constipated on all this, it's also possible they're carefully and methodically getting all their ducks in a row. That's Garland's reputation.

There is not much doubt as to what happened. This isn't about the rubes pooping on the walls and battering cops on Jan 6. This really is, literally, seditious conspiracy. We'll see if these people are held accountable or not, but the bullshit from the Trumpsters is entirely irrelevant.

This is a joke. They have abused their power and will pay when the House changes hands. You are a joke also.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You got the wrong people. Maybe you meant those people or them people. I have always believed in election results and still do. Wanting something different does not change reality.

You believe in election results? That’s an exception because in the last 20 years Democrats have shown that they too question results; hanging chads? hacked Diebold machines? Telling their candidates not to accept results if they lose?

 

[jc456]

View attachment 598224

What was bullshit?

 

[Faun]

I think it is highly likely that Pelosi and other evil people viewed this protest as a perfect way to finally "get Trump". Obviously the potential for violence was high. Obviously that violence would make Trump and his followers "look bad". Obviously the extreme lack of security was not by accident. Obviously at least some effort was used to instigate the violence by non Trump supporters (Epp). Obviously the absence of firearms questions the notion of a planned "insurrection". Obviously the left milked this riot for their own gain.... I can easily imagine Nancy rubbing her hands together that morning with her sly grin thinking to herself "Oh boy this is going to be great.".. Some people might say that this line of thinking is far fetched. But I have no doubt that Nancy is perfectly capable of this kind of scheme, at least on some level. Perhaps Trump underestimated the evil minds that are set on his demise.

The evil mind behind this belongs to the person who inspired the assault on the Capitol with months of lies about election fraud that never actually occurred; then tried to dissolve our democracy by getting the vice president of the U.S. to abandon his oath to defend the Constitution by unconstitutionally, unilaterally rejecting electors unfavorable to him; culminating with him calling for a "wild" protest at the Capitol to pressure Congress to abandon certifying the election he lost.

 

[Faun]

FACT: Trump asked for the National Guard, and Nancy and the DC Mayor said no.

CONFIRMED: DC Mayor Bowser and Nancy Pelosi Turned Down THOUSANDS Of National Guard Troops At The Capitol On January 6th - Launch Liberty

Former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense Kash Patel appeared in an interview with the Epoch Times to speak about the failures of law enforcement leading up to January 6th. Patel confirmed that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser both rejected requests for...

launchliberty.com

Former Capitol Police chief seeks to 'set record straight' about insurrection in letter to Pelosi, others

In a detailed letter addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said the department "did not fail" on Jan. 6, arguing that Capitol Police did everything it could with the intelligence available beforehand, but still did not expect a group of "thousands...

www.foxnews.com

View attachment 598284

You are the one who posts bullshit with no proof.

LOL

Pelosi did not say, "no."

That you don't actually know how the request for more security got turned down isn't actually a blemish against Pelosi -- it only serves to expose your ignorance.