nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Why no cross examination of witnesses? Why no defense presentations?

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Why aren't Trump lawyers allowed to cross examine these "witnesses?"

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Without defense presentation or cross examination of witnesses, it is a scam, kangaroo court for nothing but show.

JoyV

There are a couple of important points left out in their argument.

First. There were a number of challenges made which are supposed to be dealt with BEFORE the President of the Senate reads the electoral votes into the record. Pence, who had no authority to do so, refused the challenges. By doing so, he decided the election results which is the very thing the left is saying Pence had no authority to do.

Second. Those who argue that what Pence did was correct are using the Electoral Count Act of 1877 to support their claim. This Act gives the Governors of the States the sole authority to select a slate of electors. This is in contradiction to the United States Constitution which gives the legislatures of the States the sole authority. When the State legislatures certify one slate of electors and the Gov, or other executive branch official such as Sec of State certifies another, they are in violation of our constitution. Pence did not have the authority to CHOOSE to read the electors votes unconstitutionally certified by officials in the States' executive branch. The Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Excellent!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

The challenges have to be brought forth by a member of both the House and the Senate. I don't think that was the case, was it?

JoyV

There were originally 14 Senators and 140 House members who made challenges. This was unprecidented. After the session resumed, a few withdrew their challenges. These included Sens. Steve Daines (R-MT) and James Lankford (R-OK), and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA).

Here are the congressional members who made challenges.

Senators:
Ted Cruz (TX)
Josh Hawley (MO)
Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS)
Cynthia Lummis (WY)
John Kennedy (LA)
Roger Marshall (KS)
Rick Scott (FL)
Tommy Tuberville (AL)

House members:
Robert Aderholt (AL)
Rick Allen (GA)
Jodey Arrington (TX)
Brian Babin (TX)
Jim Baird (IN)
Jim Banks (IN)
Cliff Bentz (OR)
Jack Bergman (MI)
Stephanie Bice (OK)
Andy Biggs (AZ)
Dan Bishop (NC)
Lauren Boebert (CO)
Mike Bost (IL)
Mo Brooks (AL)
Ted Budd (NC)
Tim Burchett (TN)
Michael Burgess (TX)
Ken Calvert (CA)
Kat Cammack (FL)
Jerry Carl (AL)
Buddy Carter (GA)
John Carter (TX)
Madison Cawthorn (NC)
Steve Chabot (OH)
Ben Cline (VA)
Michael Cloud (TX)
Andrew Clyde (GA)
Tom Cole (OK)
Rick Crawford (AR)
Warren Davidson (OH)
Scott DesJarlais (TN)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
Byron Donalds (FL)
Jeff Duncan (SC)
Neal Dunn (FL)
Ron Estes (KS)
Pat Fallon (TX)
Michelle Fischbach (MN)
Scott Fitzgerald (WI)
Chuck Fleischmann (TN)
Virginia Foxx (NC)
Scott Franklin (FL)
Russ Fulcher (ID)
Matt Gaetz (FL)
Mike Garcia (CA)
Bob Gibbs (OH)
Carlos Gimenez (FL)
Louie Gohmert (TX)
Bob Good (VA)
Lance Gooden (TX)
Paul Gosar (AZ)
Garret Graves (LA)
Sam Graves (MO)
Mark Green (TN)
Marjorie Greene (GA)
Morgan Griffith (VA)
Michael Guest (MS)
Jim Hagedorn (MN)
Andy Harris (MD)
Diana Harshbarger (TN)
Vicky Hartzler (MO)
Kevin Hern (OK)
Yvette Herrell (NM)
Jody Hice (GA)
Clay Higgins (LA)
Richard Hudson (NC)
Darrell Issa (CA)
Ronny Jackson (TX)
Chris Jacobs (NY)
Mike Johnson (LA)
Bill Johnson (OH)
Jim Jordan (OH)
John Joyce (PA)
Fred Keller (PA)
Trent Kelly (MS)
Mike Kelly (PA)
David Kustoff (TN)
Doug LaMalfa (CA)
Doug Lamborn (CO)
Jacob LaTurner (KS)
Debbie Lesko (AZ)
Billy Long (MO)
Barry Loudermilk (GA)
Frank Lucas (OK)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO)
Nicole Malliotakis (NY)
Tracey Mann (KS)
Brian Mast (FL)
Kevin McCarthy (CA)
Lisa McClain (MI)
Daniel Meuser (PA)
Mary Miller (IL)
Carol Miller (WV)
Alex Mooney (WV)
Barry Moore (AL)
Markwayne Mullin (OK)
Gregory Murphy (NC)
Troy Nehls (TX)
Ralph Norman (SC)
Devin Nunes (CA)
Jay Obernolte (CA)
Burgess Owens (UT)
Steven Palazzo (MS)
Gary Palmer (AL)
Greg Pence (IN)
Scott Perry (PA)
August Pfluger (TX)
Bill Posey (FL)
Guy Reschenthaler (PA)
Tom Rice (SC)
Mike Rogers (AL)
Hal Rogers (KY)
John Rose (TN)
Matt Rosendale (MT)
David Rouzer (NC)
John Rutherford (FL)
Steve Scalise (LA)
David Schweikert (AZ)
Pete Sessions (TX)
Jason Smith (MO)
Adrian Smith (NE)
Lloyd Smucker (PA)
Elise Stefanik (NY)
Greg Steube (FL)
Chris Stewart (UT)
Glenn Thompson (PA)
Tom Tiffany (WI)
William Timmons (SC)
Jefferson Van Drew (NJ)
Beth Van Duyne (TX)
Tim Walberg (MI)
Jackie Walorski (IN)
Randy Weber (TX)
Daniel Webster (FL)
Roger Williams (TX)
Joe Wilson (SC)
Rob Wittman (VA)
Ron Wright (TX)
Lee Zeldin (NY)

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I was unaware of that!! Obviously!!

So, why did Pence refuse the challenges?

JoyV

You'd have to ask him. It could be he didn't want Trump winning the election. But I think more likely he is ignorant of the constitution and beleived what was being presented by the left as his duty. He strikes me a basically being a man of integrity. There could be other reasons.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Can't argue with that. But to me, he seems ignorant, as you said.

robertv3

I don't know. I haven't studied that point.

Why aren't more Democrats among the witnesses?

Why isn't Trump testifying under oath in this?

Why are such a large proportion of named fraudulent voters Trump voters?

Why do Republicans in the houses of Congress seem to reverse their positions, such as first saying (Mitch McConnell) that Trump was responsible for the Jan. 6 break-in and violence, and later not wanting to be part of an investigation of it, and (many of them) are even supporting Trump again?

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

On your last point, because they were over whelmed by constituents claiming Trump was a part of a coup to over turn the government, but later, upon reflection and reviewing everything, they realized that Trump had nothing to do with it and most certainly, didn't break any laws. They had knee jerk reactions because they were fooled initially by the media but came to their senses.

robertv3

Various kinds of challenges had been going on for a long time, since even _before_ the election, when Trump had already been drumming up support for the idea that if he lost then it must be rigged. None of them got very far in the courts. There were about 60 court cases where Trump's allegations about the election were found to be groundless. Many months ago I looked at a few bits of the allegations and, for myself, found them to be a ramshackle frivolous bunch of assertions. Trump's been like that for a long time (since 2015 at least). He acts like a blowhard without much substance. Most of the talk from the Trump-supporting side has been about voter fraud but they have quite a dearth of people they can actually name who did it, and no convictions. (This is discussed in more detail and more authoritatively by Greg Palast in his book "How Trump Stole 2020".) The system is designed to detect voter fraud. Of the very few people who even try to commit voter fraud, the ones who are detected have been Trump voters, and they do get named and prosecuted for it.

Republicans in the houses of Congress, or at least some of them, have shown themselves to be lacking in substance and/or fortitude. They disapprove of Trump in private but support him in public for their political careers. One of their main leaders, Mitch McConnell, has said (in essence -- I don't have an exact quote handy) that Trump was responsible for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and yet later he changed his tune. Republican officials (including Senators and Representatives) are often running scared of the Trump popular movement.

After those 60 court cases, with no end in sight to Trump's allegations (as soon as one is shown false or explained to him that it is false, he just abandons it and goes on to some other allegation, apparently with no accountability for making false allegations), the country, and Congress, had to move ahead, and Jan. 6 was the prescribed day to do it.

I remember seeing a lot of footage of what happened in the joint session of Congress in 2000. I know there are technical things that go on, such as "objections" that have some procedures attached to them. This 2020 election is the only one in my lifetime, that I know about, where a U.S. presidential candidate just flat refused to concede no matter what. Meanwhile we have a majority (represented by about 78 million voters as I recall) who have been sidelined, and had to endure Trump's grandstanding, and hearing Trump's side of things, for a long time. Now they have managed to vote him out, and this majority's will and perspective is being expressed now by Congress's select committee about Jan. 6.

I know it's not like a court trial with cross-examinations of witnesses. Neither were the Republican-led impeachment hearings.

Republicans opted out of participating in an investigation, so we ended up with this select committee instead of an earlier idea which was called a bipartisan investigation.

The Republicans that the House leadership proposed to be on the select committee were, I believe, not appropriate people to be on it. Apparently the Speaker is allowed to make a judgment call like that. I guess it wouldn't make sense to have the same people who are trying to overthrow the government to be on the committee that investigates what they were doing.

JoyV

Challenges made by congressional members at the joint session of congress, Jan 6; has nothing to do with court cases. Nor even with congressional hearings. There were several states where the electors were certified by the state legislatures and a different slate of electors were unconstitutionally certified by state executive branch officials such as governors or secretary's of state. This and other reasons which might have brought the electors certifications into question are behind congressional challenges of the electors. This is a question of abiding by the federal and state constitutions. If the constitution were violated to give Trump the win, constitutionalists would be just as quick to raise our voices against the violation.

Do you not think that if the Democrats gets away with constitutional violations the same can happen with Republicans when the shoe is on the other foot?

Now as to whether there was any evidence of election fraud, you must have been looking with your eyes closed. Lets look at just one example in one state -- AZ. The state was called for Biden long before the polls closed. They said he won the state by 10,000 votes. An audit was done of one county which found more than 30,000 illeligible ballots. This audit was held in a sports center which was ideal for making a video record of every step of the audit. The ballot bozes received from the Sec of State were deposited in a cage i the middle of the floor with video cameras covering all sides. The entire floor was covered by video camera continuously. Each table had two video cameras giving multiangle views. Each table was manned by a democrate and a republican. Those who transported ballot boxes to and from the tables and cage worked in teams of both a dem and a rep. To get a box of ballots a request had to be made with the signatures of both the dem and rep at the table. The transport team presented the request to the cage guards. They had to sign for the box. When they brought it to the table, both the dem and rep had to sign for the box. When returning a box to the cage, the reverse process was followed. There was a viewing area which overlooked the floor open to the public and press.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Come November, there will be new tricks by the democraps to deal with.