Yep.I mean, if there's no "find out" from all of this "fuck around" then there are no rules anymore.
Seriously. People need to land in jail. Garland should be rapid-firing charges once the committee report is released.I mean, if there's no "find out" from all of this "fuck around" then there are no rules anymore.
Unrelated question, can the DOJ simply arrest members of congress? Is that within their power?
They can be arrested but they are protected by the speech and debate clause which might provide some cover here.Unrelated question, can the DOJ simply arrest members of congress? Is that within their power?
Here’s hoping one of the outcomes of this committee is that immunity should be void with acts like this.They can be arrested but they are protected by the speech and debate clause which might provide some cover here.
That's what I'm getting at. Basically, can a senator commit sedition? Can a senator usurp the government? Can they be held accountable for those actions?Here’s hoping one of the outcomes of this committee is that immunity should be void with acts like this.
I suspect they could/would be arrested. From my understanding their conduct has to be related to the duties of their office and overthrowing the government probably wouldn’t qualify, haha. I do think some of the shitty conduct very well might though.That's what I'm getting at. Basically, can a senator commit sedition? Can a senator usurp the government? Can they be held accountable for those actions?
They can be arrested but they are protected by the speech and debate clause which might provide some cover here.
It definitely doesn't have to be while engaged in official proceedings - you just have to be doing stuff related to your official duties.Speech and debate applies only to legislative activities. It specifically states "for any Speech or Debate in either House" which is generally held to what they say in official proceedings. I don't think anything that is being exposed has anything to do with those type of situations.
One broad point I think is that the long delay between when the winner is known and them assuming office is way way way too long. It provides space for all these shenanigans. In most countries the PM is out his or her butt a day or few after the election.
Which any congressman/woman committing sedition (while acting in good faith, naturally) could theoretically be covered by.It definitely doesn't have to be while engaged in official proceedings - you just have to be doing stuff related to your official duties.
It definitely doesn't have to be while engaged in official proceedings - you just have to be doing stuff related to your official duties.
Well he won because the DC Circuit determined he was immune from all federal law for those comments. I think you can reasonably argue that attempting a coup is not part of your valid legislative duties though.Murtha won that on appeal due to the Westfall Act because it was a tort. I'd love to see someone make that same argument here for say ... Gym Jordan.
You mean 'maintaining the integrity of the election process' right?I think you can reasonably argue that attempting a coup is not part of your valid legislative duties though.
I mean, if there's no "find out" from all of this "fuck around" then there are no rules anymore.
Don't think fake electors appointed in violation of the law is going to fall under that.You mean 'maintaining the integrity of the election process' right?
To quote a great: It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.Don't think fake electors appointed in violation of the law is going to fall under that.
No, they haven't. Barr said he would but as far as I know he's the only one.Does it even matter??
Most (all?) of these people who have given such damning testimony have said they would still vote for Trump even after all this chaos.
Game over.
No, they haven't. Barr said he would but as far as I know he's the only one.
Well, a number of idiot states allow ballots to be sent via snail mail on election day, and give up to 2 weeks for the ballots to arrive thereafter, which is idiotic and adds opportunities to undermine the election. Should certainly require all ballots to be received by election day, and also require them to be validated and counted as received in advance of election day, the combination of both would have eliminated about half or more of the false claims propagated by Trump.This ^. The dates were originally set that way due to the times, and the difficulty in travel between locations in the late 1700s. No need whatsoever for that now.
Raffensperger most certainly did not say he would vote for Trump again. When asked he refused to answer the question as he was in the middle of a GOP primary. His refusal to answer was pretty obviously a ‘no’.Barr, Raffensberger, Bowers (I think?). If they're GOP, they will still vote for him again. Even if they were targeted during all the 2020 election chaos.
Don't think fake electors appointed in violation of the law is going to fall under that.
Not hard to prove they appointed fake electors, when they went ahead and signed and submitted them to the national archives... now while a couple states included in the transmittal a disclaimer that these only applied if the courts ruled in Trumps favor, most of the fake state electors did not and purported to be the real electors.To quote a great: It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Does it even matter??
Most (all?) of these people who have given such damning testimony have said they would still vote for Trump even after all this chaos.
Game over.