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

[rightwinger]

We know that answer well.

Trump did not even show up at the innauguration

 

[dudmuck]

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

section 3 of the 14th is self-executing, dont ya know?

 

[mamooth]

some Democrats

And by "some", you mean "essentially nobody".

You're just lying again, to deflect from the fact that only your side has tried to violently overthrow an election, with the full approval of every Trump cultist here.

You're shithuman traitors, we're not. We're going to keep rubbing that fact in your faces, and then laugh hard as you cry about it. Yes, life is still good, since the tears of the Trump cult never stop flowing, and hell still awaits them.

 

[Auld Phart]

section 3 of the 14th is self-executing, dont ya know?

section 3 of the 14th is self-executing, dont ya know?

indeed

now all you have to do is link Trump to an insurrection.

an ACTUAL insurrection.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

She is doing this because she thinks she is still popular and thinks she is going to win in 2028.

 

[struth]

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

I thought just the thought of this was an insurrection and grounds for disbarment ?

 

[struth]

When has Trump ever admitted he lost?

Jan 2021

 

[Mr. Friscus]

When you lose by as much as Harris did, there’s no case for any accusations of injustice

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Trump did not even show up at the innauguration

Oh boo hoo… Nancy Pelosi performativy tore up papers at Trumps state of the Union

Tell your own party to stop being so whiney and sensitive

 

[Auld Phart]

When you lose by as much as Harris did, there’s no case for any accusations of injustice

according to some on this board she...

https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExeHg5cXcwb2Z5bmhtaWF0Znlvc2NoMDBrbmNxMnp2ajg4YmE4aHlwMiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/4zTLvilr9w0aA/200.webp

 

[Missourian]

The Democrats have fucked up so badly that not only was Donald Trump overwhelmingly re-elected...the stupid fucks can't even complain about it.

 

[dudmuck]

indeed

now all you have to do is link Trump to an insurrection.

an ACTUAL insurrection.

yes, Colorado has done this.

 

[Auld Phart]

yes, Colorado has done this.

done what?

 

[dudmuck]

done what?

my apologies. I put the wrong link in there.
Colorado had adjudicated on the insurrection issue.

 

[Auld Phart]

my apologies. I put the wrong link in there.
Colorado had adjudicated on the insurrection issue.

"The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Colorado ruling, but that outcome was based on the high court’s reasoning that states do not have authority to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates for office. "

question: if the 6 Colorado Democratic members vote against Trump's return, aren't THEY guilty of insurrection?

 

[justoffal]

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

Probably not

 

[dudmuck]

"The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Colorado ruling, but that outcome was based on the high court’s reasoning that states do not have authority to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates for office. "

question: if the 6 Colorado Democratic members vote against Trump's return, aren't THEY guilty of insurrection?

it might not be correct to say that the supreme court overturned colorado ruling.

U.S. Supreme Court ruled against state enforcement of his ineligibility. But the court didn’t deny his ineligibility, and enforcement mechanisms remain a debated matter.

voting against trump's return wouldnt be an insurrection, because an insurrection is a violent rising up against the government or other authority. Since such a vote takes place in congress, they are the authority.

But then this goes back to the self-executing nature of the 3rd section of the 14th amendment, whether it needs a vote at all. 2/3rds vote required to remove the disqualification. but the scotus made up a ruling in conflict with the self-execution of section 3 of 14th . its called dicta, non-binding ramblings., advisory opinion. More on this here.

electoral count act --> two reasons they can object. first, electors not lawfully certified. or secondly, vote is not regularly given. Congress could hold a vote to see if they reach 2/3rds to remove the disqualification.

 

[para bellum]

it might not be correct to say that the supreme court overturned colorado ruling.

There was no ambiguity in the SCOTUS decision.

"The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed.
The mandate shall issue forthwith."

 

[Dante]

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

You mean to state publicly that Democrats respect the rule of law and the vote?

Wow! great admission

 

[LeftofLeft]

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

The good news is Biden got more votes than Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Harris.