Republicans plotting attempt to deny presidency to Biden on floor of the House if Trump gives the wo

[Wicked Blue]

Republicans plotting attempt to deny presidency to Biden on floor of the House if Trump gives the word: report

Raw Story
December 13, 2020
By Tom Boggioni

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/republicans-plotting-to-deny-presidency-to-biden-on-floor-of-the-house-if-trump-gives-the-word-report/

According to a report from the New York Times, hardcore supporters of Donald Trump who serve in the House are willing to attempt to deny the transfer of power to President-elect Joe Biden if Donald Trump gives them a thumbs-up to proceed.

With the president insisting on Saturday during a Fox News interview that “It’s not over,” and Biden would be an “illegitimate president,” a few Republicans are making plans to use the rules of the House to contest the election results.

“As the president continues to refuse to concede, a small group of his most loyal backers in Congress are plotting a final-stage challenge on the floor of the House of Representatives in early January to try to reverse Mr. Biden’s victory,” the Times reports. “Constitutional scholars and even members of the president’s own party say the effort is all but certain to fail. But the looming battle on Jan. 6 is likely to culminate in a messy and deeply divisive spectacle that could thrust Vice President Mike Pence into the excruciating position of having to declare once and for all that Mr. Trump has indeed lost the election.”

According to the report, the effort is being led by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) who has amplified the president’s accusations of voter fraud despite a complete lack of evidence.

[Runningdawg]

1. Of course they will.

And in the meantime, the Proud Boys are no longer on stand down OR stand by.

[Faux pas]

2. EFFING EFFERS

traitors all.

[FM123]

40. My thoughts exactly!

[Happy Hoosier]

3. An attempt to challenge in Congress will fail.

They simply do not have the votes.

[Freddie]

8. Even if it gets that far

A challenge has to be approved by a majority in both the House and Senate. Since Dems still have a majority in the House, nothing will happen. It’s just more theater.

[davekriss]

31. A Senator and Congressperson ...

..., at least 1 from each, have to stand up for the objection. In so doing, it forces the House and Senate to adjourn to separate chambers. Therein they debate the matter and vote. If a simple majority in both houses reject the state’s electors, it goes back to the governor of the state who then presumably has to follow their state-constitutional remedy. Since on January 5 we still have 222 Congresspeople, there’s not a chance in hell that the Republicans will prevail. But, then, we’ve been living in hell these past 4 years.

Imagine the Republican goons doing this for each state Biden won. What a circus!!

On edit: I see, Freddie, that you already understood this (i.e., the need for majorities in both houses), no need for my reply. But I’ll let it stand.

On second edit: I was wrong, above, where I said it goes back to the state’s governor. The guv’s work is done once he or she certifies results. If I now understand correctly, state’s votes where an objection carries with majorities in each the Senate and the House are set aside, not “resolved” by the state’s governor. Another point where I’m unclear is what happens as states are stripped of their votes. They don’t go to the other contestant. If Biden lost Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Georgia, he’d still have more electoral votes than Trump (234 to 232). He’d have ‘the majority of electors present’, which is what the Constitution requires. Does he win? Or must the winner have 270, which means this gets tossed to the state houses where each state gets 1 vote and Trump wins (26 to 24 votes). Someone more knowledgeable than me, please sort this out.

[Freddie]

33. I can see them making it a circus

And objecting to each state Biden won knowing it’s just time-wasting theater. Just to be assholes like Repugs are.

[treestar]

38. Suppose we did not

In the case where both houses are R majority but the POTUS winner was D.

It would be a real flaw in the Constitution if a POTUS winner could be undermined like that. Hope it is more complex than that.

[catbyte]

4. Yeah, well, it's another stunt by the Freedumb Caucus that's doomed to fail. We control the House

and there aren't enough Senators who are bonkers enough to pull it off.

[onetexan]

5. Yup, and Nancy should threaten them: dare do it & u will not be seated

[sfstaxprep]

7. Keep Dreaming

She's not going to do that. No Way. Regardless of what the repubs do.

[onetexan]

16. Hey, no different than the shenanigans they're attempting. Two can play this game.

[StarfishSaver]

10. She can't refuse to seat them on the basis they did something they're entitled to do by law

As much as we don't like it, they have every right to challenge the electoral college results during that joint session of Congress.

That's exactly what the members of the CBC did in 2001 when they try to reject the Florida results in the presidential election. That action did not subject them to being blocked from taking their seats and there is no legal basis for denying Republicans their seats for trying to do the same thing.

[onenote]

14. She hardly can threaten for utilizing a process that is expressly spelled out in the US Code

and that Democrats tried (unsuccessfully) to use during the count of electoral college votes in January 2017.

[bottomofthehill]

27. They are seated before the electoral college count

House gets sworn in on Sunday the third and the electoral college vote is The 6th

[Kablooie]

6. Now THAT could be defined as sedition. edit: Well, maybe not.

When you rely on the courts to perform a seditious act for you it's arguable that it's not sedition because are working fully within the system.

This is different and could be confidently charged as sedition against the government which would make them Constitutionally ineligible to hold a job in government.

[StarfishSaver]

11. This is a procedure provided by law and that they're fully entitled to do

It's the same procedure that CBC members tried to invoke in 2001 to reject the Florida electors' votes.

We may not like it, but it's not sedition - not even close.

[Kablooie]

18. Didn't know that. Oh well.

It's aggravating that there are so many procedures that can be exploited for such sn undemocratic cause.
There should be punishments available for frivolous use of the system.

[StarfishSaver]

20. Those same procedure you don't like because some people try to exploit them

are the ones we use to try to achieve our ends, as well.

We can't have it both ways - if the process is available to us, it has to be available to them, too.

[usajumpedtheshark]

30. Do you have an example of when "we" engaged in the same process while knowing

that there is no evidence to support our claims and that 50 or so courts have ruled against us?

[StarfishSaver]

35. That is beside the point

The Constitution provision permitting Congress to challenge thee Electoral College vote count does not set out the grounds upon which such a challenge must be based nor does it prohibit the legislators from exercising their right to challenge if a court has previously dismissed legal challenges in separate lawsuits. They have a right to do it even if it's because they don't like the color of the dress an elector wore that day.

Exercising the right the Constitution gave them does not render a Senator or Representative guilty of treason or sedition.

[usajumpedtheshark]

41. On what basis should I accept that what you say is factual instead of opinion?

Have you documented your credentials somewhere in these forums that would warrant others to believe you are a Constitutional scholar. As far as I can tell you are expressing beliefs just like everyone else.

[StarfishSaver]

43. You could simply look it up yourself.

You can start with the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 2; Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3; 14th Amendment, Sections 1 and 3; and 18 U.S.C. § 2384.

Or you can just ignore my comment because you think it's just my opinion, in which case, there's no need for you to comment any further about it.

[usajumpedtheshark]

44. Thanks, but I aleady read it. I have always believed that it was up to the Supreme Court to

interpret the Constitution instead of anonymous members of a forum. How silly of me.

If the only evidence you have the wording of your own reading of the Constitution then you are expressing an opinion. Unless you can cite references from reputable publications to support your statements, I think you should stop pretending your statements are anything more than that.

[StarfishSaver]

45. Apparently, you are unaware that the Supreme Court has already interpreted this

I'm not sure where your hostility is coming from or why you've decided to direct it at me, but if you think you're scoring any points, you are sadly mistaken. My reputation on this board is pretty solid, so if you think you can undermine me, you're sadly mistaken - and way out of your league.

[usajumpedtheshark]

47. You are funny. Do you always view questioning of your statements as a sign of hostility?

I am too old to care about playing in a reputation game or scoring points and I'm not sure what exactly you think I was trying to undermine. I am rather surprised you are worried about such thing and since it was not my intention to make you feel threatened in any way, I promise I will not respond to any of your postings ever again.

[onenote]

46. The process for members of Congress to challenge electoral votes is unambiguously spelled out

in title 3 of the US Code, which dates back to the 18th century.

A detailed explanation and summary of the process can be found here:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32717.pdf

[usajumpedtheshark]

49. It may surprise you to hear this but I have researched this

I have not said that anyone is "wrong". What I have objected to was someone predicting what will happen in the future and portraying that prediction as unquestionable fact. That is always going to raise questions in a skeptics mind especially when that person denigrates other people's opinions. If that is how this forum is supposed to work than remove the comment option from every posting.

Let's consider it in terms of probability. Yes, it is unlikely that the attempt to prevent House members being seated will be attempted. If it is attempted, it is unlikely that the current Supreme Court members would over turn the previously rulings by the Court.

But the skeptic considers that it is not impossible for these things to happen. We have seen all kinds of actions in the last four years that one might have previously thought would be highly unlikely to occur. For the Supreme Court has overruled previous Supreme Court rulings. Three hundred times if you believe Ryan Struk's reporting (CNN).

If it was true that the Supreme Court never overruled itself we wouldn't be so worried about the future of Roe vs Wade.

[WhiteTara]

32. StarfishSaver, you are really

just no fun. Your use of law and logic is just too much. You might be considered a fun sucker for all the fun you are taking from those who want what they want and they want it right now.

I'm sure the Democratic Leadership is doing all they can do. They are, each and everyone, fighters for democracy.

It is scary and depressing that our country is being dragged through the mud for petty politics.

[onetexan]

19. Precisely, hence why PA's AG labelled it "seditious abuse of the judicial process"

[usajumpedtheshark]

9. And it will again be said that there is no way that these representatives can be punished

and they will continue deny, delay and harass.

[onenote]

17. There is no way for them to be "punished" for invoking a procedure that is enshrined in law.

Can you imagine the howls if the Republicans demanded that Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jamie Raskin, and a couple of other Democrats be "punished" for following this procedure in 2017? (Actually, what the objecting Democrats tried wasn't even in compliance with the law, since their objections were not in writing and were not supported by at least one Senator. Biden, as the presiding officer, had to gavel down these members for not following the law.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Thanks for pointing this out

I've been referring to the objections the CBC lodged in 2001, totally forgetting they tried the same thing in 2017.

[sfstaxprep]

25. We Also Tried In 2005, With Barbara Boxer Signing On

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/07/politics/congress-ratifies-bush-victory-after-challenge.html

[usajumpedtheshark]

34. In another post you say it is okay to punish these representatives

"Instead of focusing on trying to force an action that has no basis in law, I urge people to consider what type of action they can advocate that can actually be taken to punish these irresponsible Members and deter others considering similar action in the future from following their lead."

[StarfishSaver]

36. If you look at the context of the discussion, we were talking about "punishing" them

by denying them their seats in Congress.

Of course there are other ways that the House can address these Members' behavior.

[usajumpedtheshark]

29. I was not limiting punishment solely to what the legal system could impose.

As a lay person, I understand that an action may be permissible under the law but that does not necessarily mean the behavior is ethically and morally correct. It may be legal for them to invoke a procedure, but for them to do so knowing their reason for doing so can not supported by evidence and that multiple courts have already ruled against their claims seems morally and ethically reprehensible. Just because it may be legal to waterboard a prisoner isn't going to change my opinion that those doing the waterboarding should be punished.

[Septua]

12. The 'Plot' was predictable...

..and with nothing but falsely, erroneously based emotions to support it. It's about the most preposterous thing I can imagine.

[onenote]

13. Typical Raw Story hyperbole.

There is no doubt that Republicans will raise objections to counting certain states' electoral college votes during the tally that occurs on January 6. The law permits such objections, provided they are made in writing, and subscribed to by one house member and one senator. If the objection meets these minimal requirements, the law provides that the count is suspended while the two houses meet separately to debate the objection. The debate is limited to two hours and no member can speak for more than 5 minutes. After the debate is concluded, a vote is taken. Unless both the House and Senate agree to uphold the objection, the votes are counted. I expect the Republicans will engage in the procedure when Arizona is called, then Georgia, and then Michigan. After they've lost all of those objections -- and they will lose them, probably not just in the House, but also in the Senate (although it doesn't matter if they win one in the Senate or not because they will lose them all in the House -- they might throw in the towel or they might continue to raise objections to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (and maybe Nevada). It will delay the vote count, which should take about a half hour, for a half day or more. But in the end, there will be one result: Mike Pence will have to announce to the world that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

[Demsrule86]

15. If they challenge the election, It will be over in a short time.Both retire to their own caucuses...

senate and House and vote. The house won't vote for refuse the electors...game over. There could be some speechifying but they don't have the votes.

[onenote]

22. Not necessarily a short time. They can spend two hours debating each objection

If the Republicans want to, they almost certainly can find enough members to drone on for two hours for each objection, which they are allowed to do under the governing statute. I expect that at a minimum they will object to counting Arizona, George, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (and maybe Nevada). If they want to, they could delay a process that should a half four so that it takes at least ten hours (probably more since it takes time for the members of the Senate to traipse across the Capitol to the Senate floor and then back again, over and over. In the end, however, it will just be grandstanding to kiss Trump's fat ass and won't change the result, which will be Mike Pence having to declare that Biden and Harris have been elected.

[Thekaspervote]

23. This..hse and senate both have to agree on the objection...will never happen

[David__77]

24. They absolutely will try that.

...

[William769]

26. And they will just add another loss to their column.

[bottomofthehill]

28. It may make for a very long day

But in the end, The votes are there for President Elect Biden.

They may have to debate each states votes, which you’ll require recessing the joint session for each chamber to debate, but in the end, VP Biden will soon be President Biden.

[Chainfire]

37. If the purpose of action is an attempt to overturn a free and fair election for the sole purpose of

installing the loser in the White House, it sounds like a grand criminal conspiracy. Whether it is legal or not, it is certainly un-American. If they were to pull it off, then no election in the future is relevant. If we don't get the results the ruling party wants, we just reverse it. We end up with a one party Fascist system of government with no "legal" remedy.

If such a move were to be successful, it would mean we would have to go to the streets with torches and pitchforks, or shut our mouths and polish our jackboots. I see no other options.

[andym]

39. Well this tactic means in the future, a rightfully elected President could be denied

IF the opposition party holds both the Senate and the House and controls the key states in question.
Doesn't matter this time though.

[greenjar_01]

42. Raw Story is clowning itself

Again.

[usajumpedtheshark]

48. Raw Story must have been a bad influence on Politico

House Republicans meet with Trump to discuss overturning election results
Source: Politico.com