4309

There’s a difference between “This is why I intend to object” and going full-on Matt Gaetz/Jim Jordan.

4310

Agree here and with @triggercut. Voting is legislators’ job. Censuring them for doing it doesn’t make sense. Why even hold the vote if you’re going to censure or expel people who vote ‘wrong’? That doesn’t seem like democracy to me.

I have no doubt that any legislator that used rules of procedure to continuously gum up the works would find themselves isolated, not serving on any committees, and could well face expulsion. AFAIK, no legislator has done that.

4311

Maybe she should work with the folks who have been doing the job for more than 3 days.

4312

Ya’ll weirdos. Those 130 Representatives voted to end democracy in the United States. None of them have any place in our politics, and good for Cori Bush for making an effort to compel them back into the outer darkness.

4313

NY Bar considering expelling Rudy.

4314

Such is the nature of democracy. You’re allowed to vote to end it.

The solution is to beat them in an election.

4315

I believe the pro forma session to introduce articles of impeachment is starting at 11(EST).

4316

I guess if Democracy were to end, holding a democratic vote to end it would be the best way?

I’m torn on this. They did it By The Rules, but there is a now a significant Fascism Caucus in the House that needs to be exterminated. 130 members. That’s like 30% of the US. It’s a massive problem.

4317

30% of the House, holding 0% of the power.

4318

At the moment.

4319

We’re gonna need a new thread

4320

We did beat them, they were trying to overturn that. By vote and by torch.

(EDIT: This isn’t me voicing my support for Cori Bush’s proposal)

4321

I believe the theory may be that the House, by a simple majority can make a “finding” that certain House members either “engaged in insurrection” or (more likely) “gave aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. The argument would be then, based on that finding, that “under operation of law” / application of the 14th Amendment, such House member shall not serve in the House. It’s an argument for a back door to “constructive expulsion” of House members using a simple majority vote. In theory, this could also be applied to the Senate. And if this controversy ended up in the courts (which is near certain) would the courts take the case or consider this a “political question” up to Congress to decide? There’s an argument that the weakest outcome from the Dem perspective would be to “suspend” a bunch of GOP House and/or Senate members for a few months while the GOPers scramble like scalded cats to get the courts to reinstate them. Even if the “constructive expulsion” didn’t stick, it would sure as hell be a major shot across the bow of the GOP extremists. On the other hand, there’s the whole Pandora’s Box/unintended consequences issue with setting that kind of precedent.

There’s a lot of speculation and theories going around and I have no idea how this would play out. But I do think just based on a read of the 14th Amendment combined with the long historical practice that the House and Senate have “fact finding” powers on a simple majority vote, there’s an argument here. On the other hand, I’m not sure it’s an argument worth making b/c of the law of unintended consequences. I’ll need to hear more about this to form a better opinion.

4322

UNITY

4323

Apparently Democrats have enough votes to proceed with articles of impeachment. There’s also push back against the notion of waiting for 100 days before proceeding.

4324

Given the precedent of Democratic Congressmen objecting to the Electoral Count, even though in very different circumstances (although in 2004 I know that there was seriously held belief that Bush has won Ohio through fraud), punishing House members just for objecting would be wrong.

4325

Also, as follow up to my post above, I’m not sure what Cori Bush is proposing and how it meshes with my speculation. We’re in some pretty uncharted territory here.

Edit: also, purely going after GOP House members for their objection to certification is not the way to pursue this, if it gets pursued. The better way is under the direct incitement and/or “giving aid or comfort” parts of the 14th Amendment, for OTHER statements made by the Congress-members. I’m fairly certain most of the 130 or so who voted against certification made statements in conjunction with/before that which could be interpreted as fomenting / urging on the insanity.

4326

I believe you’d have to convict someone of the federal charge of insurrection or sedition.

Use this law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383 or this one https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 (Trump charged with this one)

The police who were complicit /didn’t do their duty should be charged as well under aid and comfort.

I’d use it on everyone involved, though I think disputing the election in Congress itself wouldn’t be sufficient to convict.

4327

I think there needs to be a 9-11 type commission to investigate both the (non) response by HHS et al, as well as any possible co operation sitting House members.

4328

I agree with this but I think the commission’s jurisdiction needs to include the executive branch (including Trump’s efforts to interfere with the election in Georgia etc.) and the House and the Senate, and the right wing media.