What January 6th was all about

[maybelooking]

January 6th was about a rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy.

an outright LIE propagated by demfacists and their complicit media.

 

[White 6]

You believe in election results? That’s an exception because in the last 20 years Democrats have shown that they too question results; hanging chads? hacked Diebold machines? Telling their candidates not to accept results if they lose?

Good thing I am not a democrat.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Good thing I am not a democrat.

Yes. But if the core issue people not accepting election results, then any and all should be called out.

 

[Lesh]

The thread premise is a lie.

January 6th was about a rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy.

January 6th was further confirmation of the authoritarian right’s contempt for the Constitution, the rule of law, our democratic institutions, and the will of the people.

January 6th was further confirmation of the authoritarian right’s propensity for violence and lawlessness, that conservatives were willing to commit an act of treason to overturn a perfectly lawful election to retain power at any cost.

Yup

 

[Lesh]

FACT: Trump asked for the National Guard, and Nancy and the DC Mayor said no.

CONFIRMED: DC Mayor Bowser and Nancy Pelosi Turned Down THOUSANDS Of National Guard Troops At The Capitol On January 6th - Launch Liberty

Former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense Kash Patel appeared in an interview with the Epoch Times to speak about the failures of law enforcement leading up to January 6th. Patel confirmed that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser both rejected requests for...

launchliberty.com

Former Capitol Police chief seeks to 'set record straight' about insurrection in letter to Pelosi, others

In a detailed letter addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said the department "did not fail" on Jan. 6, arguing that Capitol Police did everything it could with the intelligence available beforehand, but still did not expect a group of "thousands...

www.foxnews.com

View attachment 598284

You are the one who posts bullshit with no proof.

Your first link is based on the word of Kash Patel and nothing else. Patel was installed as acting Assistant Sec Def days before the Insurrection as PART of that effort.

The second link says nothing of the sort.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

It was Trump trying to use the 1887 Electoral Count Act. People were merely protesting what they saw as an invalid election result.

Nothing more.


What is the Electoral Act of 1887?

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA) (Pub.L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373,[1] later codified at Title 3, Chapter 1[2]) is a United States federal law adding to procedures set out in the Constitution of the United States for the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election. The Act was enacted by Congress in 1887, ten years after the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock for weeks.[3] Close elections in 1880 and 1884 followed, and again raised the possibility that with no formally established counting procedure in place partisans in Congress might use the counting process to force a desired result.[4]

The Act aims to minimize congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states.[4][5] The Act sets out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state follows these "safe harbor" standards and the state's governor properly submits one set of electoral votes, the Act states that that "final" determination "shall govern."[6][7] However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements. The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act's procedures.[8] Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not "regularly given."[8][9]


The counting of ballots under the act made the cover of the first issue of Newsweek in 1933
The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election.[8] Since the bill was enacted, some have doubted whether the Act can bind a future Congress.[9] Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session.[10] In the contentious 2000 presidential election, the law's timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore. The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible."[11]: 643  Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "ts central provisions seem contradictory."[12]: 543 

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President (as President of the Senate) opens the electoral certificates. The Act clarifies the Vice President's limited role in the count.[4][8][9] Both houses can overrule the Vice President's decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie. On many occasions, the Vice President has had the duty of finalizing his party's – or his own – defeat. Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.[13][14]

Nixon in 1961 made a ruling allowing late-filed votes against him.[15] In 1969, Hubert Humphrey recused himself from the count.[16] Gore in 2001,[17] Biden in 2017,[18] and Pence in 2021[19] all rejected many challenges to certifying the results of elections that their party lost.

Currently, Congress is seeing to it that this act never gets used.

But instead of saying they are doing away with the act, they are saying democrats will "reform" it.

MSN

This was the "insurrection". Trump was merely trying to use the laws at hand to address the validity of the election results.





This is information you will never find in the news because they don't want you to be educated. That way they can twist information and lie about it without much effort.

Good post

 

[Lesh]

It was Trump trying to use the 1887 Electoral Count Act. People were merely protesting what they saw as an invalid election result.

Nothing more.


What is the Electoral Act of 1887?

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA) (Pub.L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373,[1] later codified at Title 3, Chapter 1[2]) is a United States federal law adding to procedures set out in the Constitution of the United States for the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election. The Act was enacted by Congress in 1887, ten years after the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock for weeks.[3] Close elections in 1880 and 1884 followed, and again raised the possibility that with no formally established counting procedure in place partisans in Congress might use the counting process to force a desired result.[4]

The Act aims to minimize congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states.[4][5] The Act sets out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state follows these "safe harbor" standards and the state's governor properly submits one set of electoral votes, the Act states that that "final" determination "shall govern."[6][7] However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements. The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act's procedures.[8] Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not "regularly given."[8][9]


The counting of ballots under the act made the cover of the first issue of Newsweek in 1933
The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election.[8] Since the bill was enacted, some have doubted whether the Act can bind a future Congress.[9] Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session.[10] In the contentious 2000 presidential election, the law's timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore. The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible."[11]: 643  Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "ts central provisions seem contradictory."[12]: 543 

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President (as President of the Senate) opens the electoral certificates. The Act clarifies the Vice President's limited role in the count.[4][8][9] Both houses can overrule the Vice President's decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie. On many occasions, the Vice President has had the duty of finalizing his party's – or his own – defeat. Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.[13][14]

Nixon in 1961 made a ruling allowing late-filed votes against him.[15] In 1969, Hubert Humphrey recused himself from the count.[16] Gore in 2001,[17] Biden in 2017,[18] and Pence in 2021[19] all rejected many challenges to certifying the results of elections that their party lost.

Currently, Congress is seeing to it that this act never gets used.

But instead of saying they are doing away with the act, they are saying democrats will "reform" it.

MSN

This was the "insurrection". Trump was merely trying to use the laws at hand to address the validity of the election results.





This is information you will never find in the news because they don't want you to be educated. That way they can twist information and lie about it without much effort.

None of that applies.

All of the states in question sent certified slates of electors as per this act.

There are no "do overs"

What the coup planners were trying to do was send back or simply ignore any slates of electors that would cause Trump to lose...obtain a "tie" and send the election to the House where states and not members vote...giving the election to Trump.

One thing this act specifically deals with is sending bogus slates of electors. It even states the penalty