SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
2021-01-07 14:44:44 UTC: UPDATE (See below the fold).
Pro-Trump rioters breach the US Capitol on historic day in Congress:
Supporters of President Donald Trump breached the US Capitol on Wednesday while Congress was meeting to certify the Electoral College's votes for president and vice president.
The Capitol has been put on lockdown and the certification vote has been paused. Vice President Mike Pence was evacuated from the building. House and Senate leadership is safe and in undisclosed locations, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Congress' counting of electoral votes is typically little more than an afterthought. But this joint session was expected to be a contentious affair that would last late into the evening and possibly on Thursday. Some Republicans are objecting to the count and delaying the inevitable certification of President-elect Joe Biden's win.
Also at AlJazeera (In Pictures: Pro-trump mob storms US Capitol building) and c|net (Mob storms Capitol forcing halt of election vote count).
[2021-01-06 22:33:53 UTC; UPDATE] NOTE: This is a chaotic time.
The Electoral College votes are currently being confirmed and tallied. Runoff votes in Georgia are being tallied and the results may swing the balance of power in the US Senate. The Georgia secretary of state [has been] relocated from [State] Capitol for security reasons. Mitch McConnell goes off on Trump. Pro-Trump reporter gloats over access to fleeing Hill staffer's computer. And Trump hand-picks replacement for Atlanta's US attorney after surprise resignation.
Let's please try and keep the discussion civil.
Also, please be polite and share your popcorn!
[Updates Begin]:
(1) Fox News reports Biden's Electoral College victory certified -- hours after Capitol chaos:
The U.S. Congress early Thursday certified the Electoral College vote that gave Democrat Joe Biden his presidential victory -- after a day in Washington that was marred by pro-Trump protesters storming the U.S. Capitol.
Vice President Mike Pence, who had announced he would not overturn the will of voters, confirmed the Biden victory at 3:41 a.m. ET.
Lawmakers had returned to the chamber in an act of defiance, with some Republicans who initially vowed to challenge states' results due to voter fraud concerns announcing they'd instead vote to certify.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the breach of the Capitol a "failed insurrection," adding that those who "tried to disrupt our democracy" had not succeeded.
(2) President Trump "Responds" via Staffer's Twitter Account after His Account was Suspended:
Statement by President Donald J. Trump on the Electoral Certification:
"Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th. I have always said we would continue our...
...fight to ensure that only legal votes were counted. While this represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history, it's only the beginning of our fight to Make America Great Again!"
(3) Facebook, Twitter lock Trump's account following video addressing Washington rioters:
- Twitter and Facebook on Wednesday said they would lock the account of President Donald Trump after he continued to make false claims about the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
- Facebook, YouTube and Twitter on Wednesday removed a video by President Donald Trump addressing Washington rioters.
- Meanwhile, calls are mounting for Twitter and Facebook to suspend Trump's accounts.
(4) The Associated Press has called the results for the Georgia Senate elections: both Democratic candidates defeated their GOP opponents:
With projected victories in the twin races of Warnock and Ossoff, President-elect Joe Biden will have the narrowest majority in the Senate, with both parties holding 50-50 seats apiece, allowing the tie-breaking vote to be cast by Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.
Also at The New York Times.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:48AM (46 children)
Don't be partisan. Not everyone who thinks there was election fraud is a Trump supporter.
As best I can tell the level of shenanigans with the US election was extreme. Opportunities to resolve any doubt were shit all over. The courts failing to actually hear the cases on merits means we don't actually know what level of validity does or does not exist.
There is enough doubt about the election, in my mind, that I would like to see it fully investigated and audited. I'm not "Orange Man Bad" but I am also not a Trump supporter. When the crowd was chanting "We Love Trump" I was sickened. I'd still like to see a good faith audit of the election performed. If I was a member of Congress I would contest certification until such a time.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:58AM (17 children)
They failed to make their case, even in front of judges Trump appointed.
Yes, we know your echo chambers have repeated things often and loudly but if you actually had something solid to base an accusation of shenangians on, well let's just say Rudy would have had a much better holiday week.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @01:23AM (16 children)
What cases were heard? If a case is thrown out with something like an issue with standing it doesn't mean much. For instance one of the cases involving the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act was rejected because the defendant should have been Congress and not one of the states or their executive or what ever.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Tork on Thursday January 07 2021, @01:43AM (15 children)
Look, if you really want to drill down into each of the 50+ filings you're either going to walk away saying "nope, no evidence" or "wow... the best legal teams money can buy were sitcom-level incompetent!" Or maybe some hybrid of the two. Whatever, but the more you waffle on about how apparent the shenanigans were the harder it is to make a plausible claim that anything was ignored.
BTW Cavanaugh's rejection alone should have you behaving a lil more introspectively right now.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @01:52AM (14 children)
If you could provide some details that would be useful for improving communication. Are you talking about the lawsuit that went to SCOTUS that was attempting to compel a state to follow their own laws that govern their own elections and failure to do so violated the rights of the rest of the citizens of the several states because it dilutes their representation? The one that was not heard based on the idea that one state has no interest in the actions of another state?
Do you really want to latch onto that concept? There was a war over this in the past.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 07 2021, @02:03AM (13 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @02:25AM (12 children)
It's complicated? Yeah there were some pretty obviously massive shitty lawyers like Wood and Powell and a marginally less shitty lawyer like Guiliani. For some of the petitions to the court that Powel filed best case she didn't notice her space bar broke and worst case she's fuckin crazy. I think she's closer to fuckin crazy myself. Wood has obviously lost his mind.
Shitty lawyers don't explain SCOTUS refusing to hear the case I mentioned though. For that one you can try a mental exercise. What happens if you ask a majority conservative court if one state has an interest in controlling the actions of another? If the conservative justices stick to their principles they have to decide that way. Was that the right decision? I would have preferred if the case was heard on the merits and I could read their debate instead of their rejection letter.
There was a cost to not holding trials and I think it was a major mistake on the part of the people who think the elections were not fraudulent. The cost of not holding real trials was the people who were bursting at the seams to tell their stories of what they believed to be fraud that they saw with their own eyes did so with the media and the various legislatures. The media has no rules. The legislatures have very relaxed rules compared to a trial.
For instance when I was watching the testimony being given to the Michigan senate I caught Guiliani using techniques that the opposing council would have absolutely objected to and it absolutely would have been upheld if objectively evaluated. Great plan there, this would have been much better handled in the courts.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 07 2021, @02:52AM (11 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @03:27AM (10 children)
I do not understand at all why there is so much momentum and drive to avoid something like a trial where there would be public records generated and well established procedural rules. Is there even a single case that made it into any court and generated something like a decision we can review? I'm not aware of one. I find this to be highly unfortunate.
I don't understand your mode of reasoning either. If these cases are baseless they certainly won't take very long to work out and then there would be something more substantial to discuss than "haha no court would hear it" which is only something to gloat over if you value short term gains at the cost of long term quality.
In the absence of that I'm left doing the best job I can while wearing my juror hat, which has been worn before when I actually sat on a jury (and I voted to aquit a person that I thought was guilty of the crime but we could not convict because of the racist basis for the case the state of California brought against the defendant). My juror hat says "there is more than enough evidence presented to form many circumstantial evidence trials" and I just so happened to have sat on a circumstantial evidence case.
I would very much like to hear the other side of the claims made by the people who presented evidence. The way that a circumstantial evidence case works is that the defendant needs to provide an explanation for the incident in question of which there is not sufficient evidence for a normal trial. I would very very very very much like to hear what the reasonable reasons are for the many things I heard. The witnesses could be wrong but with out trials we can't even begin to usefully identify if they are or are not.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 07 2021, @03:31AM (4 children)
You think Democrats wouldn't hold up an undesirable election with frivolous filings? Cos I do.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 07 2021, @03:59AM (2 children)
Just to clarify: I think Democrats would abuse the process if they could in order to delay an election and would like to know if you disagree with that. I apologize for my poor phrasing.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @04:02AM (1 child)
They didn't do it for 2 insanely close elections where they won the popular vote, so while I don't trust the establishment democrats it seems pretty clear they wouldn't pull this type of shit. Now if there was actual evidence of fraud, yes I'm sure they would.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 07 2021, @04:26AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @04:02AM
I think both Republicans and Democrats would do anything to maintain power. It seems the only thing they agree on is that Democrats and Republicans should remain in charge. When the left started going "oh ho ho it looks like Mitch McConnell rigged the election too!!!!!!! Take that!!!!" I went "yeah it wouldn't surprise me at all."
Trump is quickly becoming old news. That leaves us with Democrats and Republicans both of which would fuck us in a heart beat including rigging the elections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @11:56AM (3 children)
There were dozens. And most of the complaints, responses, arguments, amicus briefs and rulings are available online.
In Pennsylvania (the PA supreme courts has a whole *section* for election cases) , Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia and pretty much every other state cases that involve governmental issues are public records. In the Supreme Court too.
15 seconds on a search engine will find "[state] election cases" at places like http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/ [pacourts.us] and the like.
I'll warn you that it will blow up your uninformed, preconceived notions about the election litigation after the 2020 election.
But better you know the truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @01:53PM (2 children)
Thanks for tossing me a bone. The link to the PA courts page about election cases is http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/cases-of-public-interest/election-2020 [pacourts.us]
I'll take a look through there but there's quite a bit of stuff to pour through. If there was a link to the documents from a specific case it would be beneficial for everyone to make the link as available as possible. I suggest a link to the case (or a case name or even just the state) for the example that was given elsewhere of a judge asking Guiliani to provide a statement, under oath, under formal trial rules, about the election fraud and Guiliani saying, under oath, that he has none.
Such a link would be very useful and extremely difficult for anyone to argue with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @09:36PM
This drives me nuts. The stories and court documents have been there but so many people claiming voter fraud haven't even taken the time to look. Giuliani himself has repeatedly said that
Repeatedly. A judge even went so far as to point out
Or what about
But that red meat wasn't good enough and many on the right ignored what they were actually saying. No, you all just keep repeating what you are told and feels good while accusing the rest of being the "sheeple" doing the same. So then the lawyers got the genius idea of claiming it is "undetectable." And you can see that all over the court documents. They cannot offer evidence in court of the fraud because there is no evidence of the fraud. You got that? The lawyers are literally saying there is no evidence of voter fraud because it can't exist. All they can do is offer vague allusions many of which have still been shot down in court. All of this and more has been all over the news. I've linked to plenty of the exact court documents on this website to show exactly what is going on, repeatedly. And often to the same username. How someone can keep their head in the sand for so long drives me nuts. There is not someone so blind as he who will not see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2021, @04:08AM
How about this one?
https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-election-cases/ [osu.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2021, @06:20AM
Educate yourself. You're ignorant, yet spouting off anyway. Always a good look.
https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-election-cases/ [osu.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @03:15AM (10 children)
But everyone who is a Trump supporter thinks there was election fraud. But the funny thing is, there wasn't! Not one provable case, and certainly nothing that could change the outcome of the election. So basically if you think there was election fraud, when there was not, you might as well be a Trump supporter, because you match the cognitive skills of one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @03:32AM (9 children)
Pray tell sir, how did you form your conclusion there is no evidence?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @03:49AM (7 children)
You can't prove a negative, it is up to Trump's lawyers to provide the proof. Jesus y'all are dumb.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @04:12AM (6 children)
Then what is your definition of evidence? I'm trying to figure out if you don't think the massive amount of testimony was evidence or if you are the type of person who does absolutely no research at all but still thinks their opinion is worth anything.
You have asserted there is no evidence. Testimony and affidavits are by definition evidence. You can see some of that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2RkKBHX0M [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @06:22AM (4 children)
According to you idiot Trumpers testimony is just hearsay and gossip, not evidence. Well, at least it isn't evidence when it inconveniences your fat daddy.
So which is it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @08:09AM (3 children)
Rip your head out of your partisan ass. You are making assumptions about me so you don't have to argue on merits.
What the witnesses gave was testimony. Some of them signed affidavits which come with penalty of perjury associated with them. What a pile of people who worship Trump say has no bearing on a discussion between you and I.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @08:21AM (2 children)
No, your head being up your partisan ass is fairly strong evidence that our assumptions about you are well attested to, under pain of perjury, and sending sex videos to your new boyfriend's ex. Now shut the fuck up, Trumptard!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @02:01PM (1 child)
It's not possible for me to be partisan since I'm neither a Democrat nor am I a Republican. I'm not a Trump worshiper either. I'm not entirely sure what I am since no label fits but the closest I can think of would be classical liberal. The kind that has conservative tendencies but isn't unworkably rigid. Abortion? Have at it. Burn a flag? Don't care, have fun. Racism is bad, in all forms, including the kind where white people think they are better than other races and the kind where financial, economic and other policy decisions are based on race alone.
People like you shove others into buckets they don't belong into.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @07:01PM
Liar! We all know what "classical liberal" means! TMB brand of alt-right crypto-Republican fascist! Time to either pull your head out of your ass, or push it so far up that you turn right-side out again. Best wishes!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2021, @06:21AM
https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-election-cases/ [osu.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2021, @06:20AM
https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-election-cases/ [osu.edu]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday January 07 2021, @05:47AM (16 children)
The courts did hear it. Then when it came time to actually make an actionable claim under oath, Giuliani stated that he had none. At that point, there's nothing more to hear. Were you expecting the judges to serve tea and crumpets at that point or what?
When concerns were brought to election officials, video was reviewed and nothing found. Trump's people got TWO recounts in Ga, buth agreed with the original count. They demanded a signature audit, no problems found. They demanded a closer examination in Michigan (IIRC) and they actually found 2 fraudulent ballots (both were votes for Trump!).
The matter has been heard,re-heard, then heard again (and again and again).
Trump has had well more than his day in court and he lost.
What we're seeing now is a two year old laying on the floor and screaming because Mom and Dad said it's time to leave the toy store and a bunch of people who are old enough that they should know better siding with the toddler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @05:59AM (9 children)
The courts rejected most of the cases with either a standing argument, or saying the case was brought too early or too late.
At a minimum, SCOTUS should have heard the Texas case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @06:25AM (5 children)
Cute, that Trumper was really hoping the supreme court nominations were the final brick in their coup wall. Looks like Trump got played by everyone, the useful idiot king who would let corruption run free and take all the blame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @07:54AM (4 children)
What's the problem with hearing the case?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @09:02AM (2 children)
Do your research and I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @02:11PM (1 child)
Could you spend maybe a couple extra seconds and say something useful?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @08:02PM
Could you do more than troll discussions? No? Fuck off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @12:11AM
You mean other than the fact the Supreme Court said that the U.S. Constitution doesn't let them?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday January 07 2021, @07:02AM (1 child)
Sorry, no. There are time limits for a reason and courts have always frowned on cases where you allege that the defendant WILL wrong you but hasn't yet.
As for the Texas case, why in the world should they have heard it? Constitutionally, it's none of Texas' business how Georgia handles it's election. If Georgia wants to decide it based on which candidate wins 2 of 3 rounds of tiddlywinks, that's it's business (of course, if a resident of Ga wants to challenge that, the court might be receptive).
It's not uncommon for courts to reject cases where the plaintiff cannot win as a matter of law. For example, when the crazy dude claimed to be God and that David Copperfield usurped his divine powers to perform stage magic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @08:14AM
It's very interesting to see people make these arguments today. I seem to recall Texas previously had a disagreement with some of the other states about being told what to do inside their borders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2021, @06:23AM
Not really. That was the situation where that made *legal* sense, but certainly not *most* of the cases.
https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-election-cases/ [osu.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @08:12AM (5 children)
Citation please. I'd like to read about it. I must have missed that in the deluge of info and I can't find it when I search.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday January 07 2021, @08:32AM (1 child)
Try this [latimes.com], and and this [nytimes.com].
But honestly, it was all over the news, including a suit alleging that republican observers were barred from observing where the attorney was forced to admit under oath that the number of Republicans observing the election was non-zero.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @10:02AM
Yeah, bringing inaccurate charges that you are forced to admit are wrong is a really bad look. Lots of enjoyment watching judges bitch slap them though while they impotently sit on their hands.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:00PM (1 child)
Read the damn court documents!
http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/ [pacourts.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @02:19PM
More useful link: http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/cases-of-public-interest/election-2020 [pacourts.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2021, @06:24AM
https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-election-cases/ [osu.edu]
And you're welcome.