VP Kamala Harris will certify Trump's win on J6 despite call for Dem coup

[JGalt]

After all that talk about "protecting our democracy" and "fascism", some Democrats were calling for a coup by not certifying the incoming President. Apparently that's not going to happen.

Kamala to certify Trump win on J6 despite call for Dem coup​

"Democrats are unlikely to oppose the will of the people with Vice President Kamala Harris expected to certify President-elect Donald J. Trump’s win on January 6, 2025, despite calls for a coup.

This week, a political media outlet caused a stir when it published a call for Democrats to reject Trump’s landslide victory over Harris on the pretense that he engaged in a so-called “insurrection” and urged lawmakers to reject the election results under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Here are two idiots inciting an insurrection …Remember the names: Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now https://t.co/bIQjpbsAAQ
— Chris LaCivita (@ChrisLaCivita) December 26, 2024

In the column published by The Hill, the former editors-in-chief of the prestigious legal journals the Columbia Law Review and the Yale Law Journal conjured up the dubious legal theory for preventing Trump from taking office that was shot down by the Supreme Court earlier this year.

“Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming,” wrote Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, a pair of ivory tower-dwelling elitists who scoffed at the idea that the “democracy” constantly preached by Democrats should apply when it comes to the real thing.

But despite their own invocations of the 14th Amendment against Trump – most vocally from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former radical academic – Democrats apparently have no stomach for going there, with the optics of refusing the certification of the Electoral College being a big loser for the party after it squawked for the last four years about election denial.

On Thursday, Politico reported that “no Democrats are circulating plans to object to Donald Trump’s victory. Kamala Harris plans to certify his win” when Congress convenes to perform its constitutional duty on J6.

According to the outlet, “no one expects Harris to remotely entertain the idea — and Democrats have roundly dismissed it as a possibility.”

“Harris aides have said she intends to carry out her duties as all vice presidents have before her, in part because it is right and also because it’s the law. Indeed, lawmakers seem so certain that Jan. 6, 2025 will lack intrigue that they’ve largely treated it as an afterthought. Gone are the intensive strategy sessions and convoluted legal analyses aimed at pressuring the vice president to take an active role in the proceedings in order to reverse the outcome,” Politico reported, quashing the idea floated by the Ivy League eggheads in their explosive column.

“I think you’re going to have a pretty sort of normal transfer, and I think we will respect the wishes of the American people … in contrast to what happened January 6, 2021,” Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) said.

“I do feel like that’s worth saying over and over again,” added the congressman, the top Dem on the House committee that is tasked with the oversight of elections.

“I have not actually heard of anybody who intends to vote no,” Morelle said, “and I would certainly discourage it.”

Raskin had previously vowed that House Democrats would prevent Trump from taking office even though the Supreme Court rejected the 14th Amendment farce.

Jamie Raskin is saying that congress will STOP Trump from taking office even if he’s chosen by the voters.
This is extremely dangerous. Every Democrat needs to be on the record about this immediately. pic.twitter.com/9IwRoGrrQu
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 5, 2024

But with Trump overwhelmingly winning the Electoral College as well as the popular vote, Democrats would face public outrage if they actually go through with it.

It’s unlikely that there will even be a symbolic challenge as a group of Democrats did in 2017, the last time that Trump won the election.

“I’m not intending to do that again, because I think that people don’t differentiate,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the outgoing House Progressive Caucus queen bee.

“Harris will be presiding over the certification of her own defeat — a moment that is simultaneously uncomfortable and an ode to the peaceful transfer of power,” according to Politico. “She’s the third losing candidate to do so in recent history.”

Kamala to certify Trump win on J6 despite call for Dem coup

 

[Crepitus]

VP Kamala Harris will certify Trump's win on J6 despite call for Dem coup​

Well duh.

She's not some bloody tRumpling after all.

 

[rightwinger]

If Trump were VP, would he have certified the election of his opponent?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Does the VP or outgoing president normally certify?

 

[Auld Phart]

After all that talk about "protecting our democracy" and "fascism", some Democrats were calling for a coup by not certifying the incoming President. Apparently that's not going to happen.

Kamala to certify Trump win on J6 despite call for Dem coup​

"Democrats are unlikely to oppose the will of the people with Vice President Kamala Harris expected to certify President-elect Donald J. Trump’s win on January 6, 2025, despite calls for a coup.

This week, a political media outlet caused a stir when it published a call for Democrats to reject Trump’s landslide victory over Harris on the pretense that he engaged in a so-called “insurrection” and urged lawmakers to reject the election results under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.



In the column published by The Hill, the former editors-in-chief of the prestigious legal journals the Columbia Law Review and the Yale Law Journal conjured up the dubious legal theory for preventing Trump from taking office that was shot down by the Supreme Court earlier this year.

“Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming,” wrote Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, a pair of ivory tower-dwelling elitists who scoffed at the idea that the “democracy” constantly preached by Democrats should apply when it comes to the real thing.

But despite their own invocations of the 14th Amendment against Trump – most vocally from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former radical academic – Democrats apparently have no stomach for going there, with the optics of refusing the certification of the Electoral College being a big loser for the party after it squawked for the last four years about election denial.

On Thursday, Politico reported that “no Democrats are circulating plans to object to Donald Trump’s victory. Kamala Harris plans to certify his win” when Congress convenes to perform its constitutional duty on J6.

According to the outlet, “no one expects Harris to remotely entertain the idea — and Democrats have roundly dismissed it as a possibility.”

“Harris aides have said she intends to carry out her duties as all vice presidents have before her, in part because it is right and also because it’s the law. Indeed, lawmakers seem so certain that Jan. 6, 2025 will lack intrigue that they’ve largely treated it as an afterthought. Gone are the intensive strategy sessions and convoluted legal analyses aimed at pressuring the vice president to take an active role in the proceedings in order to reverse the outcome,” Politico reported, quashing the idea floated by the Ivy League eggheads in their explosive column.

“I think you’re going to have a pretty sort of normal transfer, and I think we will respect the wishes of the American people … in contrast to what happened January 6, 2021,” Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) said.

“I do feel like that’s worth saying over and over again,” added the congressman, the top Dem on the House committee that is tasked with the oversight of elections.

“I have not actually heard of anybody who intends to vote no,” Morelle said, “and I would certainly discourage it.”

Raskin had previously vowed that House Democrats would prevent Trump from taking office even though the Supreme Court rejected the 14th Amendment farce.



But with Trump overwhelmingly winning the Electoral College as well as the popular vote, Democrats would face public outrage if they actually go through with it.

It’s unlikely that there will even be a symbolic challenge as a group of Democrats did in 2017, the last time that Trump won the election.

“I’m not intending to do that again, because I think that people don’t differentiate,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the outgoing House Progressive Caucus queen bee.

“Harris will be presiding over the certification of her own defeat — a moment that is simultaneously uncomfortable and an ode to the peaceful transfer of power,” according to Politico. “She’s the third losing candidate to do so in recent history.”

Kamala to certify Trump win on J6 despite call for Dem coup

Harris will be presiding over the certification of her own defeat — a moment that is simultaneously uncomfortable and an ode to the peaceful transfer of power,” according to Politico. “She’s the third losing candidate to do so in recent history.”

Gore I remember. who were the other 2?

 

[Auld Phart]

Does the VP or outgoing president normally certify?

VP

 

[Thunk]

How shit faced will she be at the certification?

Will we even understand her slurring?

 

[Oddball]

 

[1srelluc]

When I first heard of a "coup" around cert a few days back I thought, I bet Raskin has his hands in it.

Cancer needs to finish the job it started with that rat bastard.

 

[JGalt]

Gore I remember. who were the other 2?

2000, 2004 and 2016, according to this:

Opinion | Democrats Have Been Shameless About Your Presidential Vote Too (Published 2021)

Democrats Have Been Shameless About Your Presidential Vote Too​

After the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections, they objected to counting electoral totals.

"As Republicans in Congress prepare to formally contest the outcome of the 2020 presidential election on Wednesday, many of them have cited precedent for their effort: similar complaints lodged by Democrats in other presidential elections. After Republican victories in 2000, 2004 and 2016, for instance, Democrats in Congress used the formal counting of electoral votes as an opportunity to challenge election results.

But the history of Democratic efforts to contest the outcomes of presidential elections is not a history worth emulating. On the contrary, it only underscores that the certification of a president-elect’s victory by the House and Senate is an improper forum for the airing of political grievances and an inappropriate occasion to readjudicate the decisions of the states concerning things like vote tallies, recounts and audits.

While Congress has the power to decline to count electoral votes, it has done so only in extreme situations in the aftermath of the Civil War — when, for instance, a state was deemed to lack a functioning government. The Electoral Count Act of 1887, which sets the rules for Congress to count electoral votes, was enacted with the presumption that state procedures are trustworthy. The act instructs Congress to defer to state judgments when a state resolves controversies over the appointment of electors.

The act also requires broad political consensus to decline to count electoral votes. It instructs that on Jan. 6 after a presidential election, the president of the Senate (typically the vice president) presides over a session of the two chambers. If a member of Congress wishes to object to counting a state’s electoral votes, a member of the House and a member of the Senate must sign a written objection. The chambers separate for up to two hours of debate. If majorities of both chambers agree to the objection, the objection stands. If not, the votes are counted.

Few objections were filed in accordance with the Electoral Count Act in the 20th century. But starting with George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election, Democrats contested election results after every Republican win.

In January 2001, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida objected to counting his state’s electoral votes because of “overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas referred to the “millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida’s inaccurate vote count.” Representative Maxine Waters of California characterized Florida’s electoral votes as “fraudulent.”

Vice President Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them. Part of the reason they didn’t join, presumably, was that Mr. Gore conceded the election a month earlier.

In January 2005, in the wake of Mr. Bush’s re-election, Democrats were more aggressive. Senator Barbara Boxer of California joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio to lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate, even though Mr. Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes.

Representative Barbara Lee of California claimed that “the Democratic process was thwarted.” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said that the right to vote was “stolen.” Ms. Waters objected too, dedicating her objection to the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, whose 2004 movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” painted a dark (and at times factually debatable) picture of the Bush presidency.

The motion failed, but not before 31 members of the House, and Ms. Boxer in the Senate, voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes — effectively voting to disenfranchise the people of Ohio in the Electoral College.
In January 2017, after Donald Trump’s victory, Democrats in Congress once again challenged the election outcome. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts cited “the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia.” Ms. Lee of California argued that Michigan’s electoral votes should be thrown out because “people are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections.” She also cited “the malfunction of 87 voting machines.”

There were objections against the votes in at least nine states. To his credit, Vice President Joe Biden rejected each objection on procedural grounds, stating that “there is no debate” and “it is over.”
Then as now, each member of Congress was within his or her rights to make an objection. But the objections were naïve at best, shameless at worst. Either way, the readiness of members of Congress to disenfranchise millions of Americans was disconcerting.

The last time Congress threw out all of a state’s electoral votes was in 1873. In addition to rejecting a portion of votes from Georgia (cast for a recently deceased candidate, Horace Greeley), Congress rejected Louisiana’s electoral votes because it concluded that the state lacked a functioning government, and it rejected Arkansas’s electoral votes for similarly grave reasons. Rejecting a state’s electoral vote is a disfavored remedy for extreme situations.

More recent efforts by Democrats to throw out electoral votes went nowhere in large part because the losing candidates — Mr. Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton — had conceded the election and did not encourage Congress to reject the vote. This election is different, of course: Mr. Trump continues to argue that the election was “stolen” and “rigged,” and that “ballot stuffing” took place, and Vice President Mike Pence has indicated support for efforts to challenge the election outcome in light of those claims.

But there is no evidence to support those claims. State officials have certified the election results. Without more evidence (and none seems likely to come out), the electoral votes from every state should be accepted by all members of Congress — including all Republicans."

 

[Auld Phart]

2000, 2004 and 2016, according to this:

Opinion | Democrats Have Been Shameless About Your Presidential Vote Too (Published 2021)

Democrats Have Been Shameless About Your Presidential Vote Too​

After the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections, they objected to counting electoral totals.

"As Republicans in Congress prepare to formally contest the outcome of the 2020 presidential election on Wednesday, many of them have cited precedent for their effort: similar complaints lodged by Democrats in other presidential elections. After Republican victories in 2000, 2004 and 2016, for instance, Democrats in Congress used the formal counting of electoral votes as an opportunity to challenge election results.

But the history of Democratic efforts to contest the outcomes of presidential elections is not a history worth emulating. On the contrary, it only underscores that the certification of a president-elect’s victory by the House and Senate is an improper forum for the airing of political grievances and an inappropriate occasion to readjudicate the decisions of the states concerning things like vote tallies, recounts and audits.

While Congress has the power to decline to count electoral votes, it has done so only in extreme situations in the aftermath of the Civil War — when, for instance, a state was deemed to lack a functioning government. The Electoral Count Act of 1887, which sets the rules for Congress to count electoral votes, was enacted with the presumption that state procedures are trustworthy. The act instructs Congress to defer to state judgments when a state resolves controversies over the appointment of electors.

The act also requires broad political consensus to decline to count electoral votes. It instructs that on Jan. 6 after a presidential election, the president of the Senate (typically the vice president) presides over a session of the two chambers. If a member of Congress wishes to object to counting a state’s electoral votes, a member of the House and a member of the Senate must sign a written objection. The chambers separate for up to two hours of debate. If majorities of both chambers agree to the objection, the objection stands. If not, the votes are counted.

Few objections were filed in accordance with the Electoral Count Act in the 20th century. But starting with George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election, Democrats contested election results after every Republican win.

In January 2001, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida objected to counting his state’s electoral votes because of “overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas referred to the “millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida’s inaccurate vote count.” Representative Maxine Waters of California characterized Florida’s electoral votes as “fraudulent.”

Vice President Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them. Part of the reason they didn’t join, presumably, was that Mr. Gore conceded the election a month earlier.

In January 2005, in the wake of Mr. Bush’s re-election, Democrats were more aggressive. Senator Barbara Boxer of California joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio to lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate, even though Mr. Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes.

Representative Barbara Lee of California claimed that “the Democratic process was thwarted.” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said that the right to vote was “stolen.” Ms. Waters objected too, dedicating her objection to the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, whose 2004 movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” painted a dark (and at times factually debatable) picture of the Bush presidency.

The motion failed, but not before 31 members of the House, and Ms. Boxer in the Senate, voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes — effectively voting to disenfranchise the people of Ohio in the Electoral College.
In January 2017, after Donald Trump’s victory, Democrats in Congress once again challenged the election outcome. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts cited “the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia.” Ms. Lee of California argued that Michigan’s electoral votes should be thrown out because “people are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections.” She also cited “the malfunction of 87 voting machines.”

There were objections against the votes in at least nine states. To his credit, Vice President Joe Biden rejected each objection on procedural grounds, stating that “there is no debate” and “it is over.”
Then as now, each member of Congress was within his or her rights to make an objection. But the objections were naïve at best, shameless at worst. Either way, the readiness of members of Congress to disenfranchise millions of Americans was disconcerting.

The last time Congress threw out all of a state’s electoral votes was in 1873. In addition to rejecting a portion of votes from Georgia (cast for a recently deceased candidate, Horace Greeley), Congress rejected Louisiana’s electoral votes because it concluded that the state lacked a functioning government, and it rejected Arkansas’s electoral votes for similarly grave reasons. Rejecting a state’s electoral vote is a disfavored remedy for extreme situations.

More recent efforts by Democrats to throw out electoral votes went nowhere in large part because the losing candidates — Mr. Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton — had conceded the election and did not encourage Congress to reject the vote. This election is different, of course: Mr. Trump continues to argue that the election was “stolen” and “rigged,” and that “ballot stuffing” took place, and Vice President Mike Pence has indicated support for efforts to challenge the election outcome in light of those claims.

But there is no evidence to support those claims. State officials have certified the election results. Without more evidence (and none seems likely to come out), the electoral votes from every state should be accepted by all members of Congress — including all Republicans."

I read it to claim that the VP certified the candidate they lost the election to.

Gore is the only one coming to mind.

 

[toobfreak]

Kamala to certify Trump win on J6 despite call for Dem coup

Gee, that really concerns me.

I'm not sure Kamala knows how to count high enough to count each state's electoral college votes!

She only has 20 fingers and toes!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Hopefully after she does she disappears forever

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

If Trump were VP, would he have certified the election of his opponent?

Yes.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Gee, that really concerns me.

I'm not sure Kamala knows how to count high enough to count each state's electoral college votes!

She only has 20 fingers and toes!

Magaturds: sorest winners ever.

 

[para bellum]

I read it to claim that the VP certified the candidate they lost the election to.

Gore is the only one coming to mind.

Pence wasn't the top of the ticket in 2020, but he was on the ticket, and had to certify Biden's win.

Dems changed the law after 2020, so the VP's role is now reduced to the "ministerial function" of opening and counting the certificates.

It also requires 1/5 of each house of Congress to raise an objection, so the business of one Rep and one Senator halting the count is done away with.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Hopefully after she does she disappears forever

Kommie will become governor of California and continue the destruction of the once beautiful state.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Kommie will become governor of California and continue the destruction of the once beautiful state.

Suck it dry?

 

[rightwinger]

Yes.

When has Trump ever admitted he lost?

 

[Crepitus]

If Trump were VP, would he have certified the election of his opponent?

We know that answer well.