AOC Calls for Expulsion of Lawmakers Involved In 1/6

[luv2fly]

AOC Calls for Expulsion of Any Members of Congress Involved in Planning January 6 Riot
BY KHALEDA RAHMAN ON 10/25/21

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called for the expulsion of any member of Congress who helped plan the storming of the U.S. Capitol after a bombshell report alleged that several Republican lawmakers had co-ordinated with rally organizers.

"Any member of Congress who helped plot a terrorist attack on our nation's capitol must be expelled," the New York congresswoman wrote in a tweet late on Sunday night.

Her comment came after a Rolling Stone report, published on Sunday night, claimed multiple members of Congress had been "intimately involved" in the planning of former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn his election loss and the January 6 protests, which culminated in the violence at the U.S. Capitol.

Rolling Stone cited two anonymous sources, both involved in planning pro-Trump "Stop the Steal" rallies after the 2020 election, who said they had communicated with several Republican members of Congress or their senior staffers, as well as members of Trump's team, ahead of January 6.

More at

https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-expulsion-congress-members-planning-january-6-riot-rolling-stone-rally-organizers-1642083

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread luv2fly.

[Celerity]

2. K & R

[JohnSJ]

4. Yes, but they have to have proof, not anonymous sources, that won't be good enough

[brush]

13. Rolling Stone has proof/documents. Only keeping sources...

anonymous for protection right now. They did name names...the usual winger suspects...Greene, Boebert, Brooks, Cawthorn, Gosar, Biggs etc.

Those traitors have to be worried big time right about now.

[FoxNewsSucks]

23. Looks like the people whose guilt was already obvious

[aggiesal]

34. I'm surprised after his high fist salute, that Josh Hawley wasn't included in the list. n/t

[soldierant]

98. Sadly, only one of those is in the Senate.

I'd like to get the ones in the Senate all out expeditiously and see what happens to the filibuster.

Maybe we could get some things done.

Not that it won't be nice to have them out of the House also.

[Dorian Gray]

114. I feel like

they should be worried... but they're not. They're still on the Big Mouth tour circuit, and they won't stop until they're put in handcuffs.

[LoveMyCali]

76. Exactly

My first thought was no shit, where's the proof?

[uponit7771]

119. the ... PLANNING ... of J6 attack was illegal, we only need to prove rallies were connected in any

... way as a way to gather the insurrectionist.

That doesn't seem like a hard connection to make seeing there are plenty of oath keepers etc willing to talk

[Hekate]

5. Works for me

[lindysalsagal]

6. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

[berni_mccoy]

7. While I completely agree they should, we barely got the votes to enforce a subpoena on Bannon

I don’t think expulsion of these traitors will pass.

[brush]

14. It wasn't barely. Several republicans voted against Bannon.

[berni_mccoy]

48. To expel a member you need 2/3rd majority.

[brush]

50. That's not what my response was to. Several repugs...

voted with the Dems on holding Bannon in contempt.

[berni_mccoy]

53. Several. Would that be a handful? Right. Barely.

[brush]

54. Come on. Nine votes with the Dems is not barely. Two or three is barely.

[qazplm135]

80. it's 4 percent of the Repulblican House Caucus

that pretty clearly counts as barely.

[brush]

99. Nine is hardly barely when it's usually none. It passed easily.

And what the hell are we arguing about. Bannon got held in contempt, which is what we wanted.

[qazplm135]

100. you're the one quibbling

over where 4 percent of something qualifies as barely based on a definition that isn't in the dictionary but something you just made up that somehow it must be close to zero.

Barely simply means "by a very small margin" and given the context of what you'd need for expulsion, barely is the correct word.

[brush]

101. No. You're the johnny come lately to this. See post 7

[qazplm135]

102. you mean the thread I read?

I'm going to add patronizing to the list. You're one of those I need to correct and be right people I see. One who then can't accept if someone disagrees with them.

[brush]

103. You don't seem to get that the OP 7 poster moved the goalpost...

to switch subjects. But no matter. Continue to do what you do.

[qazplm135]

104. yep

as I thought...gotta be right, can't stand to be wrong.

[brush]

105. Ahhhh...you better look in the mirror.

[qazplm135]

106. clever

that's top of the line comeback right there.

[brush]

124. But it's true. We're two of a kind, buddy.

[qazplm135]

131. Lol

If only, this whole string wouldn't have happened if we were.

[brush]

133. Come on, it happened because we are. Admit. I just did.

[spanone]

108. Nine repugs voted with Dems

[leftieNanner]

15. My thought as well

Kevin McCarthy is a stupid coward (and I don't use those words lightly) and there's no way he would convince that many of his caucus to expel them.

[lagomorph777]

87. Why are you thinking we need Reptilian votes?

Only a majority is needed. This is not impeachment; it's ineligibility due to insurrection.

[global1]

17. This Is Not Something That Should Go To A Vote Of The Whole House.....

This borders on a treasonous act and there should be no question as to whether anyone involved should get a pass. If they participated in the planning and/or helped the insurrectionists in any way - they should be immediately expelled.

[berni_mccoy]

49. My hope is that the DOJ prosecutes them and then the House will be forced to expel them

[Alpeduez21]

55. Why would the house be forced to expel them?

Is there a rule stating those prosecuted by the DOJ must be expelled? You think repukes will vote out members simply because there is incontrovertable proof they assisted the rioters? Repukes don't care how repulsive their members are. They had a child molester as the lead senate candidate in GA. They put serial molesters on the supreme court. They enthusiastically support a known protector of coaches who rape their student athletes. They just don't fucking care and they might win the house and senate.

There is too much belief among the Democratic Party that repukes will someday wake up and do the right thing. That barely happened with Nixon's impeachment/resignation. And NOTHING they have done since can convince me they have integrity just hunger for power at any cost.

[berni_mccoy]

57. I should have used the word pressure

If the charges against these members is serious enough, it could make it easier for the rest of the Republican members to see that the gig is up and the would not have to defend them.

[TomSlick]

72. I agree.

There is not a 2/3 majority available to expel any GQPer. The only hope is a criminal prosecution and conviction. My understanding of the House rules is that any GQPer who is charged will lose committee assignments pending trial. If the GQPers are convicted, they will be expelled.

[lagomorph777]

86. Where did you get the 2/3 majority thing? That's not in the Constitution.

The Constitution says insurrectionists must be expelled. It also says it takes a 2/3 vote to reinstate them.

We don't need any Reptilian votes to make this happen.

[TomSlick]

130. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

[Evolve Dammit]

65. I believe you are absolutely correct!

[lagomorph777]

84. Only a majority is needed, and after we expel a few, our majority widens.

A 2/3 vote is needed to let 'em back in.

[berni_mccoy]

90. The Constitution says 2/3 majority is required to expel.

[lagomorph777]

92. No it doesn't!

2/3 to let them back in.

"Section 3. 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."

Read that two-thirds bit very carefully; it says the opposite of what you think it does.

[berni_mccoy]

93. Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2

“Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

[lagomorph777]

96. This is not (mere) disorderly behavior. It's disqualification for insurrection.

14th Amendment.

Section 3. 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.

[berni_mccoy]

97. I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about

[True Dough]

8. MOST DEFINITELY!!!

WITHOUT A DOUBT!!! This must happen!

[Bristlecone]

9. KR

[WA-03 Democrat]

10. This is obvious

Trump wanted to over throw the government. He's said to the crowd "we are going to walk down there and make the right choice." Over throw the results for Trump not how the people voted. The only thing shocking is we had a President who wanted to over throw the United States. Lock that fucker up.

[triron]

11. Now we need many more democrats to come out the same way. Or will they send a stern worded letter?

[malaise]

12. +1,000

Rec

[brooklynite]

16. And when she has 1/3 of House Republicans to vote with the Democrats, I'll be impressed.

[maxsolomon]

25. Is that the standard?

I thought that was to re-instate an expelled traitor:

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.

[brooklynite]

42. Yes: and you'll need roughly 1/3 of the Republicans to join the Democrats to get to 2/3.

[maxsolomon]

62. Well, shit. It's not happening, and AOC knows it.

The majority of Congressional Repukes are complicit or quislings.

[hadEnuf]

67. The way your previous post reads I think you may be right.

2/3 vote to relieve the disability.... (of not being able to serve in government)

2/3 to expel somebody for open treason just doesn't sound right. Worth looking up in it's entirety I guess.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

123. So she shouldn't be calling for it?

We shouldn't make the Rs vote to not expel the assholes so they are on record supporting them?

[maxsolomon]

126. I don't know any more.

I get weary of congressional theatrics, but I'm also deeply cynical and depressed about the future of this country.

[colorado_ufo]

66. Somehow, I am reading this differently.

It seems to me, by my reading, that they MUST be expelled. However, 2/3 vote each of the House and the Senate could "remove such disability" and allow them to remain.

[hadEnuf]

69. I am reading it the same way you are.

[brooklynite]

73. You are wrong...

FIRST, to argue that someone who "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" is automatically expelled requires first that the person in question is tried and convicted on the charge; "knowing they're guilty" is not sufficient.

SECOND, the language of the constitution says that such a person is ineligible to serve, but that it is up to the "Congress" (specifically the chamber in question) to "remove" the "disability" by a 2/3 vote.

[Bob_in_VA]

77. Not sure of your point

The Constitution says no one convicted of treason can serve in Congress. So the question of whether or not we "know" they are guilty doesn't come into play. But there appears to be evidence that some or all of the usual suspects did, in fact, aid and abet the insurrectionists. So there is hope that we will see several empty seats in the House of Representatives (and maybe the Senate as well) before too long.

On a different point, can someone convicted of treason even have the right to vote? I know some states don't allow convicted felons to ever vote again, absent some sort of pardon but what about someone convicted of treason? My favorite punishment, not that it ever existed, would be to sentence everyone of the traitors to never be allowed to set foot on US soil again ala Edward Everett Hale's short story, "Man Without a Country"

[brooklynite]

78. There is no Federal restriction on voting...

...and this is moot because nobody is going to be convicted of TREASON.

[lagomorph777]

91. 2/3 needed to let them serve; not to boot them out.

I could go along with waiting for a conviction, if we had a functioning DOJ in this context. Unfortunately, we don't, so Congress will have to purge itself.

[lagomorph777]

89. +1000 That is, indeed what the words say; some here like to get creative though

and come up with ways to excuse insurrection.

[lagomorph777]

88. Where are you getting that? That's not what it says at all.

2/3 to reinstate. It's silent on how many votes to remove for insurrection, but as a separately defined disqualifier, it's not an impeachment.

[brooklynite]

117. I'll rely on Speaker Pelosi's judgement.

I suspect one of us will be disappointed in the outcome.

[lagomorph777]

118. I suspect most of the country will be disappointed in the outcome.

Based on the pace so far.

Too bad. It was a nice experiment.

[brooklynite]

125. In THAT regard, I suspect the average voter doesn't care...

People who don’t hang out on political blogs or watch endless hours of cable news aren’t focusing on the insurrection outcome or Trump corruption in general.

[lagomorph777]

127. No problem. In a few years, there will be no voters.

[ecstatic]

116. If true, so what? Hold the vote anyway

Do whatever it takes to neutralize the threat that they pose. They are a cancer in Congress.

By not holding a vote, our party's actions do not match our words.

If we are saying that January 6th was a terrorist attack and an attempted coup, act like it dammit!

Same thing with the voting rights fiasco: even President Biden compares it to Jim Crow part 2, but of course it's still not a priority. Got to pass Build Back Better first.

This is why many people complain that Democrats are too weak. I sincerely hope that this strategy works out.

[Celerity]

121. Following your logic, any politicians who argued for women's suffrage or for

civil rights when neither cause had the votes did so in vain as well, and are thus also deserving of your oh so predictable snark.

What AOC is doing is giving voice to the right thing to do. It sets out a challenge, it is pushing back against treason and sedition.

[Carlitos Brigante]

132. Yeah, but I'm sure in his head it sounded really clever in his head. Then again "Country Club humor"

ain't my thing.

[CentralMass]

18. K&R

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

21. YES!!!

[FoxNewsSucks]

22. It's way overdue for that to be publicly demanded.

THey should already be behind bars.

[lees1975]

24. I agree they should be expelled...

but it takes a two thirds vote to do it. The easier way is for the DOJ to indict them for treason, present the evidence and imprison them. They can't run or vote from jail.

[onetexan]

27. +1 K&R

[BigmanPigman]

39. Good point.

[dalton99a]

26. Kick

[AllaN01Bear]

28. i wanna see any of those traitors who co signed the lawsuit to over turn

the election by the az atorney gen. expelled as well.

[ancianita]

29. GREAT strategy to plant facts of the tapes showing tours, docs & testimony showing pre-Jan6 comms.

It's GREAT to get American voters out to vote them the hell out, along with Republicans who won't vote to expel them.

Americans KNOW. And AOC knows they know.

[SergeStorms]

30. Absofreakinglutely!

Every damned one of them. Boebert-GONE, Greene-GONE, Cawthorn-GONE, Gohmert-GONE, Biggs-GONE, Brooks-GONE

[JesterCS]

31. I agree 100% n/t

[monkeyman1]

32. sick of this damn government afraid they might get bad PR from THE -EX- clusterf#%f!

[PSPS]

33. Sorry, it will never happen. There will be no consequences for any of this. Wake me if I'm wrong.

[SergeStorms]

41. WAKE UP!

You're wrong. There, I said it. Once the curtain comes down on just one of them the rest will run like scalded dogs. If republicans see some justice being done to Trump and his gaggle of creeps, they'll suddenly turn into the "old republicans" again, and act like they were there all along.

Someone has to show some backbone in the republican party, and when they see there's no benefit to kissing Trump's bulbous butt, they'll scatter like cockroaches with the lights turned on. It's coming. They're getting scared because they know the charade is over. Evidence is mounting quickly, and pretty soon they'll need wings to stay above it.

You just watch, PSPS.

[Kaleva]

45. Coordinating with a legal rally isn't the same as coordination with the attackers of the Capitol

[Midnight Writer]

82. It will keep this at the top of the news cycle. This Jan 6 story is picking up momentum.

We need a steady stream of new stories related to it to keep the media interested.

Look at how the GOP sold Benghazi. How many people have heard of Benghazi, and how many of those associate it as a scandal for Democrats?

I know it is crass, but it works. We need to keep fueling this train.

[BeckyDem]

35. Huge +1

[ffr]

36. K&R How do we get behind this? We cannot have insurrectionists in power.

It's like having the defendant criminal in charge of his sentencing. Guess what he'll choose to do? Throw the judge and the jury in jail, that's what!

[monkeyman1]

37. TO A.O.C.---- YOU GO GIRL !! RIDE THIS HORSE ! ALL MUST GO !

Indictments should follow ! get them out first ! call ethics , doj , what ever work's ?

[Kid Berwyn]

38. TRAITORS!

They should have no role in Congress, apart from prosecution, censure and public humiliation. In the Senate, suspects include Cruz, Hawley and Tuberville.

[peggysue2]

40. I'm with AOC on this one

Any member, aide, advisor, etc. involved in seditious acts (planning, funding, instigating, inciting, supporting now or then) should be expelled, tout suite, never to serve again.

Anything less makes a mockery of the rule of law and our constitutional Republic.

[PatrickforB]

43. You bet. They are traitors to the republic.

[Kaleva]

44. Has it been determined if any member of Congress cooridnated with those who stormed the Capitol?

Which isn't the same thing as coordinating with a legal protest, the 'Stop The Steal' rally.

[Champp]

46. Thank you AOC. Republican traitors deserve jail.

[demosurvivor]

47. I totally agree

Add to it that they should be tagged to never be allowed to run for any for any political office ever again. That includes TFG. Jail time should be implemented to the fullest extent of the law.

[Generic Brad]

51. She's more gracious about this than I

These people messed with our democracy. Expulsion should be the least punitive thing they face.

[bucolic_frolic]

56. +1 THIS

No national government, State with a capital 'S", should tolerate overthrow attempts. If it wants to remain in business.

[NurseJackie]

52. Sure. Why not?

[SergeStorms]

63. Like someone asked you....

if you wanted a ride 50 feet down the road.

GET EXCITED, NURSE JACKIE!

LET'S GET EXCITED ABOUT SOMETHING!

Long day? Yeah, I can understand the lack of enthusiasm. Some days you just don't have it in you. You're excused.

[Tribetime]

58. How about let them face the mob who hates them with no protection

Maybe we can lock them up until their trial

[Blue Owl]

59. It's called removing the cancerous tumor

[BidenRocks]

60. We were so quick to:

Hang Sadaam
Execute Pvt Slovik
Support Cesecaeu's execution
and so many more.

Not a single one ever tried to bring our government down.

We need to think about the true criminals in our system and do some 'equal justice under the law'!

Discussion?

[czarjak]

61. Jodey Arrington is a lap-dog too.

[Evolve Dammit]

64. Yes!

[Septua]

68. Reply # 66

Hell, all the ones continuing to perpetuate the Big Lie should have been run out of town months ago... Every damned one of them, with the exception of Kinzinger and Cheney, broke their oath, and continue to violate it every day. Why MTG is still in Congress baffles me. But, who's going to expel them?

Like I've said before...there's apparently no entity with the authority to discipline Congress, except Congress... And they are ALL to chicken shit to discipline themselves...

The Justice Dept may do something if they decide they can win a case against the few that may end up with enough evidence against them to be charged...but I ain't holding my breath on that outcome.

[Septua]

71. Violation of Oath

http://foavc.org/01page/Articles/Violation%20of%20Oath%20of%20Office%20and%20Walker%20v%20Members%20of%20Congress.htm

[RussBLib]

74. I don't see a Reply #66

that's odd

[Septua]

83. It was #66 when I started it...

..have to type fast to hold your place in line.

[Codifer]

70. In my darkest moments,

and the duration and frequency of those moments are greatly increasing, I wish for dire and immediate action against not only those who attempted this coup but also against all of those hate-filled assholes who supported them with their votes and bullying and who continue to do so. Add those who blatantly suppress the legal votes of citizens or support those who do.

I am shocked at the degree of viciousness I am capable of in these imaginings. The guillotine is the kindest of my imagined punishments although most would get life at hard labor without parole (no aryan brotherhood grad school). Nearly all would forfeit everything of value and spend their days begging on the street or in stocks.

I am disgusted with myself.

There must be consequences for insurrection..... but all I have seen is a few dumbshits getting their pee pee slapped.

That makes me disgusted with everything.

[NewJeffCT]

75. you need a 2/3 vote to expel a lawmaker

nearly impossible in the current atmosphere and a nearly even House. Earlier this year, a Democrat (forgot his name) tried to get Taylor-Greene expelled and garnered only 72 supporters - only about 1/3 of the Democrats.

However, you can EXCLUDE a member more easily - only a majority vote. By excluding them, you can essentially say "this person does not meet the standards of having a seat in the US House of Representatives"

[Septua]

85. Which was my point...

They can do whatever without consequence.

[lagomorph777]

94. Wrong.

Section 3. 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.

Read this very carefully. It would take 2/3 to let an insurrectionist back in.

[Celerity]

109. The power to exclude comes from Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.

This came up when it looked like Trump and the Rethugs would use chicanery to block enough EV's to toss the POTUS election into the House, where they would have had the 26 (or more) State delegations needed to make Trump POTUS.

Pelosi could have (this is REALLY deep into the weeds of raw, hyper-technical power plays) refused to seat (ie exclude) enough Rethugs to give us 26 or more delegations, we elect Biden, and THEN seat the Rethugs.

Whilst technically constitutional, that could have started a civil war. Thank fuck it did not come to that.

Section 5: Powers and Duties of Congress

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Here’s what Pelosi could do if Republicans tried to manipulate the presidential election’s outcome

If the game is constitutional hardball, Democrats could try this play

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/05/heres-what-pelosi-could-do-if-republicans-tried-manipulate-presidential-elections-outcome/

President Trump last week floated the idea in a tweet that the presidential election should be postponed, after alleging that mail-in voting would mar the results. His tweet underscores what Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, alleged in the spring: The president and his allies could “indirectly steal the election” by alleging massive voter fraud if Biden and the Democrats win big. How exactly would this work? In one scenario, even if Biden wins the popular vote in a state, a Republican governor or state secretary might refuse to certify the state’s slate of electoral college electors. That would mean that not enough electors would be selected, resulting in no presidential candidate being able to win a majority (270) of the 538 electoral college votes.

Under the Constitution’s 12th Amendment, such a move would throw the election to the House of Representatives — empowering the newly elected House in January to vote to select the president. But here’s the rub. The Constitution directs the House to vote by state delegation, and Republicans currently hold a majority of the House’s state delegations. Assuming that the GOP maintains that lead in the new Congress and that lawmakers would vote for their own party’s nominee, the House would thus elect a Republican as president. As former Colorado senator Timothy Wirth and Newsweek’s Tom Rogers put it, this is how Trump could “lose the election and still remain president.” Democrats could retaliate if they were willing to play what’s called “constitutional hardball” — stepping outside democratic norms without technically violating the Constitution’s limits, as when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to convene a hearing to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. That’s something some observers claim Democrats are typically reluctant to do. But if Democrats were to play tough, here’s a constitutional curveball they could throw.

snip

Here’s how Democrats would be able to retaliate

Assuming the new House reelects Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as speaker, Pelosi could use the chamber’s power under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 5, to have her majority be the “judge” of contested elections to the House. The House could then seat enough Democrats to give Democrats control of a majority of state delegations before the House votes to select the president in January 2020.

Here’s how this might play out. As the judge of contested elections, the House can entertain any challenge to the election results at the beginning of its session (after choosing the speaker, customarily its first vote). Usually, the House refers these challenges to a committee to investigate. The committee recommends awarding the seat to one or another candidate, and the House votes on that recommendation. If enough Democratic challengers surfaced to allow the Democrats to claim a majority of delegations, then the attempt to manipulate the presidential election could be reversed.

[mahina]

79. Bless her!

[Quixote1818]

81. This should be a given. It's amazing it would even be up for debate. nt

[Wingus Dingus]

95. Yup.

[spanone]

107. K&R

[mvd]

110. K&R

I fully agree with AOC!

[ck4829]

111. K&R

[cstanleytech]

112. The Republicans in the House will support that the day after I hit the Powerball. nt

[UCmeNdc]

113. K&R

They actually planned to overthrow the United States government and install their own leader.

[ecstatic]

115. Of course. Ask yourself, what would republicans do?

If the situation were reversed, the seditionists would have been expelled on January 7th, and rightly so. Of course, our side has to overthink everything.

I love what we stand for, but we have to get tougher if we want to maintain our hard fought victories. We're watching in real time as each of those rights are trampled upon: our democracy, our right to vote, our right to choose, etc. Expelling traitors is a no brainer. Just do it!

[lark]

120. !00%

I was just thinking this myself after finishing with the previous thread and looked up and voila there it was! Kick out the traitors and try them for sedition against the United States.

[Bucky]

122. It's a laudable policy. Of course there has to be due process.

[NH Ethylene]

128. Even if it can't be enforced, the publicity will drive the point home to the people.

That their elected official was instrumental in attacking his/her own country.

[catrose]

129. Absolutely