Democrat asks Pelosi to refuse to seat lawmakers supporting Trump's election challenges

[ZiprHead]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/529883-rep-pascrell-jr-asks-pelosi-to-refuse-to-seat-lawmakers-supporting-trumps?fbclid=IwAR0q_bCCXs6SyXisw21znuU3nBh1xgDuPIpjhFcYZ3RZ92LbUaUBg9ljQys

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) is asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to refuse to seat members of the next Congress who back President Trump’s effort to challenge the election.

The demand comes as more than 120 House Republicans, including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), have signed an amicus brief supporting Texas’s election lawsuit in the Supreme Court.

The suit is asking the court to prevent Electors from finalizing President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

“Stated simply, the men and women who would act to tear the United States Government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress,” Pascrell said in a statement posted to Twitter.

“These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election undoubtedly attack the text and the spirit of the Constitution, which each Member swears to support and defend,” he added.

Pascrell argues that the 14th Amendment prohibits members of Congress from rebelling against the U.S., and “trying to overturn a democratic election and install a dictator seems like a pretty clear example of that.”

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said on Wednesday that he would object when Congress meets to certify the Electoral College vote.

You know the Republicans would do it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Well, if the election was fraudulent then any new members of Congress weren’t legitimately elected.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, if the election was fraudulent then any new members of Congress weren’t legitimately elected.

I guess they shouldn't seat any new members then.

 

[TomC]

Well, if the election was fraudulent then any new members of Congress weren’t legitimately elected.

I guess they shouldn't seat any new members then.

For my entire life, I would have considered this sort of partisan pettiness far below the bar of competent governing.

But Trump and the TeaParty have lowered the bar on partisan pettiness so much that I hope that threat actually accomplishes something.

Anybody who publicly claims that the 2020 election results are fraudulent shouldn't be voting in government until the matter is settled.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Well, if the election was fraudulent then any new members of Congress weren’t legitimately elected.

I guess they shouldn't seat any new members then.

For my entire life, I would have considered this sort of partisan pettiness far below the bar of competent governing.

But Trump and the TeaParty have lowered the bar on partisan pettiness so much that I hope that threat actually accomplishes something.

Anybody who publicly claims that the 2020 election results are fraudulent shouldn't be voting in government until the matter is settled.
Tom

Would you have said the same thing for the 2016 election?

 

[TomC]

For my entire life, I would have considered this sort of partisan pettiness far below the bar of competent governing.

But Trump and the TeaParty have lowered the bar on partisan pettiness so much that I hope that threat actually accomplishes something.

Anybody who publicly claims that the 2020 election results are fraudulent shouldn't be voting in government until the matter is settled.
Tom

Would you have said the same thing for the 2016 election?

Yep. I said that in my post.

Do you think Hillary's response to losing the EC is comparable to Trump's?
I don't.

Tom

 

[Trausti]

For my entire life, I would have considered this sort of partisan pettiness far below the bar of competent governing.

But Trump and the TeaParty have lowered the bar on partisan pettiness so much that I hope that threat actually accomplishes something.

Anybody who publicly claims that the 2020 election results are fraudulent shouldn't be voting in government until the matter is settled.
Tom

Would you have said the same thing for the 2016 election?

Yep. I said that in my post.

Do you think Hillary's response to losing the EC is comparable to Trump's?
I don't.

Tom

So Maxine Waters and the other Congressional dems who objected to the certification of Trump’s election should have been booted from Congress?

 

[TomC]

Yep. I said that in my post.

Do you think Hillary's response to losing the EC is comparable to Trump's?
I don't.

Tom

So Maxine Waters and the other Congressional dems who objected to the certification of Trump’s election should have been booted from Congress?

That's not what I said at all.

Were Waters and other congressional dems claiming that the whole election was fraudulent? Were they inciting violence and filing SCOTUS lawsuits a month after the election? Were they using the powers of the White House to punish anybody who didn't tell Hillary and her supporters what they wanted to hear?

No. As a matter of fact your ridiculous whataboutism is just ridiculous. Seat them when they accept the election results.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yep. I said that in my post.

Do you think Hillary's response to losing the EC is comparable to Trump's?
I don't.

Tom

So Maxine Waters and the other Congressional dems who objected to the certification of Trump’s election should have been booted from Congress?

That's not what I said at all.

Were Waters and other congressional dems claiming that the whole election was fraudulent? Were they inciting violence and filing SCOTUS lawsuits a month after the election? Were they using the powers of the White House to punish anybody who didn't tell Hillary and her supporters what they wanted to hear?

No. As a matter of fact your ridiculous whataboutism is just ridiculous. Seat them when they accept the election results.
Tom

To be fair, the Republicans don’t believe the “whole” election was fraudulent. Just the races they lost.

 

[RVonse]

Yep. I said that in my post.

Do you think Hillary's response to losing the EC is comparable to Trump's?
I don't.

Tom

So Maxine Waters and the other Congressional dems who objected to the certification of Trump’s election should have been booted from Congress?

That's not what I said at all.

Were Waters and other congressional dems claiming that the whole election was fraudulent? Were they inciting violence and filing SCOTUS lawsuits a month after the election? Were they using the powers of the White House to punish anybody who didn't tell Hillary and her supporters what they wanted to hear?

Sort of. Seems to me either her or someone else of her ilk was demanding the impeachment of Trump before he was even inaugurated. And yes, Obama was using the powers of the white house to spy on the president elect.

 

[RVonse]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/529883-rep-pascrell-jr-asks-pelosi-to-refuse-to-seat-lawmakers-supporting-trumps?fbclid=IwAR0q_bCCXs6SyXisw21znuU3nBh1xgDuPIpjhFcYZ3RZ92LbUaUBg9ljQys

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said on Wednesday that he would object when Congress meets to certify the Electoral College vote.

You know the Republicans would do it.

I did not know she could do that. I did not know one person had that much power. I did know that congressmen could be impeached (though that legal process) but I did not know that one person had the dictator powers to disenfranchise all the voters of another state.

 

[Politesse]

Let's not have a race to the bottom.

 

[TomC]

I did not know that one person had the dictator powers to disenfranchise all the voters of another state.

Google Paxton.

He hasn't pulled it off yet, but he clearly believes he has the power. He is a solid Trump supporter.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

For my entire life, I would have considered this sort of partisan pettiness far below the bar of competent governing.

But Trump and the TeaParty have lowered the bar on partisan pettiness so much that I hope that threat actually accomplishes something.

Anybody who publicly claims that the 2020 election results are fraudulent shouldn't be voting in government until the matter is settled.
Tom

Would you have said the same thing for the 2016 election?

Why not address the issue instead of injecting a "whataboutism"?

Those signatories have shown their craven partisanship to any rational observer. They were elected and I think they should be seated.

 

[ZiprHead]

That's not what I said at all.

Were Waters and other congressional dems claiming that the whole election was fraudulent? Were they inciting violence and filing SCOTUS lawsuits a month after the election? Were they using the powers of the White House to punish anybody who didn't tell Hillary and her supporters what they wanted to hear?

Sort of. Seems to me either her or someone else of her ilk was demanding the impeachment of Trump before he was even inaugurated. And yes, Obama was using the powers of the white house to spy on the president elect.

Oh, brother. Another right-wing bullshit story you swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

 

[TomC]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/529883-rep-pascrell-jr-asks-pelosi-to-refuse-to-seat-lawmakers-supporting-trumps?fbclid=IwAR0q_bCCXs6SyXisw21znuU3nBh1xgDuPIpjhFcYZ3RZ92LbUaUBg9ljQys

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said on Wednesday that he would object when Congress meets to certify the Electoral College vote.

You know the Republicans would do it.

I did not know she could do that.

You didn't know that people could object to things?

Have you never read a tweet from Trump?

Tom

 

[TomC]

And yes, Obama was using the powers of the white house to spy on the president elect.

Got any reason for anyone to believe this?

I do remember Trump lying about Obama "wiretapping his campaign headquarters". That didn't happen. Trump hired an international criminal, Paul Manaforte, and the extremely legal(and eventually successful) investigation continued. Obama had nothing to do with Manaforte being under investigation. But Trump had hired a known criminal to run his campaign. So the investigation continued.

Trump's loose moral and ethical standards are why the FBI had legal reasons to listen in to his campaign, nothing to do with Obama. You're just plain wrong.
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

Any campaign that has 200+ contacts with Russians had better be investigated. "Spied on" -- horseshit. The Trump campaign lied and lied repeatedly about their dealings with Putin people.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Trump's loose moral and ethical standards are why the FBI had legal reasons to listen in to his campaign, nothing to do with Obama. You're just plain wrong.
Tom

I wish the GOP Loser in Chief had "loose" moral and ethical standards. That would mean he actually had ethical and moral standards, something he clearly does not.

 

[zorq]

Trump's loose moral and ethical standards are why the FBI had legal reasons to listen in to his campaign, nothing to do with Obama. You're just plain wrong.
Tom

I wish the GOP Loser in Chief had "loose" moral and ethical standards. That would mean he actually had ethical and moral standards, something he clearly does not.

Eh, I would disagree with that statement. Trump has very clear and simple moral standards. In fact, I think Trump's moral standards are quite godlike. Just ask him and he will tell you that everything that he does is good and moral and everything that the people he doesn't like do is bad and immoral. Just like the bible-god.

Actually he has the insatiable egocentrism of the bible-god too. Maybe that is the secret ingredient in Trump worship that I have never noticed before. Trump reminds his dupes of their dead-beat and occasionally abusive sky-daddy.