Jan. 6 was a Protest for Election Integrity, not an Insurrection against the U.S. Government

[kyzr]

Wait. You have this supposedly high IQ and can’t tell when you’re being mocked?
Hmmm

Your Low-IQ is showing...

IRS Deletes Requirement That New Agents Be Willing to Use 'Deadly Force'

Backlash against IRS hiring practices follows criticism alleging that tens of thousands of new agents will be hired and go after poorer Americans.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Lastamender]

The events of Jan. 6 were not a peaceful protest for election integrity, but an armed insurrection against the U.S. government.

Thousands of Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building, breaking windows, clashing with police, and disrupting the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory. Police seized guns and explosives in and around the Capitol, and approximately 140 police officers were assaulted. The attack resulted in five deaths and dozens of injuries.

We are rating your thread pants on fire

Who is we? Other idiots and traitors? Why do you repeat lies?

 

[BlindBoo]

Again, not what I said. You certainly have a problem with following along

You asked if he can reject the states certified count. "but the VP doesn't have to accept them. right?" Nothing in the Constitution gives him that choice. It's open and count, not decide to accept or not, then open and count......

"The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted."

 

[jc456]

You asked if he can reject the states certified count. "but the VP doesn't have to accept them. right?" Nothing in the Constitution gives him that choice. It's open and count, not decide to accept or not, then open and count......

"The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted."

What happens if he doesn’t open them?

 

[BlindBoo]

What happens if he doesn’t open them?

The end of the universe as we know it, obviously.

 

[jc456]

The end of the universe as we know it, obviously.

Yep. Selective outrage

 

[jwoodie]

It stopped being a protest the second people rioted and started vandalizing government property to the tune of over a million dollars worth of damage.

Rioting and vandalism is not insurrection. And neither is million dollars worth of damage. Want to try again?

 

[Blues Man]

Rioting and vandalism is not insurrection. And neither is million dollars worth of damage. Want to try again?

Where did I say it was an insurrection?

I clearly said it was a riot. In fact I never used the word insurrection did I?

 

[Hum Dinger]

I still can't get over the fact that a group of people who called themselves the "Oath Keepers" but try to stop the electoral college from executing the duties that had taken a oath to do.

Talk about irony!

 

[jwoodie]

The VP has no authority via the Constitution or by Statute to throw out a states duly certified vote.

But he does have the authority to refer contested elections to Congress.

 

[scruffy]

The VP has no authority via the Constitution or by Statute to throw out a states duly certified vote.

English motherfucker, do you speak it, Roman swine.

WTF are you talking about, duly certified?

No one "duly" certified nothin!

How can you "duly" certify 30,000 mismatched signatures?

 

[The Duke]

The events of Jan. 6 were not a peaceful protest for election integrity, but an armed insurrection against the U.S. government.

Thousands of Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building, breaking windows, clashing with police, and disrupting the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory. Police seized guns and explosives in and around the Capitol, and approximately 140 police officers were assaulted. The attack resulted in five deaths and dozens of injuries.

We are rating your thread pants on fire

How many bullets flew, fucktard?

 

[The Duke]

But he does have the authority to refer contested elections to Congress.

Pence and Congress dropped the ball..bad.

 

[g5000]

You're the one who is gaslighting. Are you one of those low-IQ democrats? You post like one. (WTF is "bleeving"?)

IRS Deletes Requirement That New Agents Be Willing to Use 'Deadly Force'

Backlash against IRS hiring practices follows criticism alleging that tens of thousands of new agents will be hired and go after poorer Americans.

www.newsweek.com

"The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) removed the requirement that special-agent applicants carry firearms and "be willing to use deadly force" from a job listing."

The ad was real, dumbass. The WH morons you obey got caught.

Again, most of the hirees are simple auditors, idiot. You have ZERO evidence they are door-kicking, gun-toting agents.

"Bleeving" is when someone falls for a hoax. They "bleev" it. Like the bleef the IRS is hiring 80,000 agents with guns.

"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"

 

[jwoodie]

Where did I say it was an insurrection?

I clearly said it was a riot. In fact I never used the word insurrection did I?

So was it an insurrection or not? Your word games indicate a desire to avoid answering this question, which addresses the subject matter of the OP.

 

[jc456]

Pence and Congress dropped the ball..bad.

Yep, they authorized election cheating

 

[jc456]

Where did I say it was an insurrection?

I clearly said it was a riot. In fact I never used the word insurrection did I?

I don’t think rioting was used in the OP

 

[jc456]

Where did I say it was an insurrection?

I clearly said it was a riot. In fact I never used the word insurrection did I?

BTW, I’m proud people exposed the actual steal by inciting the trespassing

 

[BlindBoo]

WTF are you talking about, duly certified?

No one "duly" certified nothin!

How can you "duly" certify 30,000 mismatched signatures?

Excellent question. How to handle allegations.......

Under the United States Constitution, the states are delegated the initial and principal authority for the administration of elections within their jurisdictions, including elections to federal office. Such election administration in the states would generally include provisions for recounts, challenges, or contests to the results of such elections in the state that may be filed by the appropriate parties within a specific time frame and procedure established by state law.

An election contest, however, usually addresses allegations of fraud in voting, or mistake or irregularity in election administration, that has resulted in the wrong candidate having been found to have received the most votes in the election, or which has made the ascertainment of the winner “reasonably uncertain.” Courts have been historically cautious in interfering with and overturning the results of a popular election on the basis of allegations of fraud or election irregularities.

As is the case in general with civil law suits under American jurisprudence, the burden of proof is upon the challenger, that is, the moving party, not only to prove all of the allegations and charges with specific, credible evidence,10 but also—in the case of an election contest—to show that any fraud or irregularity proven was to such an extent that it would actually have changed the result of the election or rendered the actual outcome reasonably uncertain.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44659.pdf

 

[jc456]

Excellent question. How to handle allegations.......

Under the United States Constitution, the states are delegated the initial and principal authority for the administration of elections within their jurisdictions, including elections to federal office. Such election administration in the states would generally include provisions for recounts, challenges, or contests to the results of such elections in the state that may be filed by the appropriate parties within a specific time frame and procedure established by state law.

An election contest, however, usually addresses allegations of fraud in voting, or mistake or irregularity in election administration, that has resulted in the wrong candidate having been found to have received the most votes in the election, or which has made the ascertainment of the winner “reasonably uncertain.” Courts have been historically cautious in interfering with and overturning the results of a popular election on the basis of allegations of fraud or election irregularities.

As is the case in general with civil law suits under American jurisprudence, the burden of proof is upon the challenger, that is, the moving party, not only to prove all of the allegations and charges with specific, credible evidence,10 but also—in the case of an election contest—to show that any fraud or irregularity proven was to such an extent that it would actually have changed the result of the election or rendered the actual outcome reasonably uncertain.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44659.pdf

So why didn’t the states allow the challenges that trump made? If it’s in the constitution and all!!!