One year ago, the storming of the U.S. Capitol marked a final, violent attempt to subvert a national election after earlier efforts by the former president and his allies had failed.

Those efforts principally sought to nullify states’ election results by filing dozens of lawsuits predicated on fictitious claims; coercing and possibly criminally soliciting state and local officials to commit election fraud; attempting to enlist the Justice Department in a campaign to overturn results; urging state lawmakers to “decertify” results themselves; pressuring the then-vice president to delay or block the counting of electoral votes by Congress; and petitioning the Supreme Court to delay certification in the event the vice president would not. As the Jan. 6 certification approached, the former president assessed how he might declare martial law in order to seize voting machines and “redo” the election. Then, he and allies incited a violent mob to ransack the Capitol. Threading these efforts together was the Big Lie: the former president’s Orwellian claim that others had in fact corrupted the election, and that he was its victim.

Pursuing accountability generates all sorts of risks, but avoiding accountability is riskier still. In light of the consequences otherwise, the pursuit of accountability for serious wrongdoing must be a given.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

are you going to spend the next four years insisting trump needs to go to jail for this now? since, despite your best efforts, you have failed for the last 5


you know he's going to run and win in 2024....it will be fun to see your reaction:jester:

tents are nice...people love camping...not a sign of failure at all

Ok. SO the democrats who asked the electors in 2016 not to vote for Trump, and the democrats in Congress who voted to contest election results in a few states with zero evidence of wrongdoing (some of them are still in Congress)...where is their accountability, Pete?

If avoiding accountability is such an existential threat, how come you've never called for any of them top be accountable? What they tried to do, was undermine a free and fair election, because they didn't win. That's EXACTLY what Trump tried to do.

Just post what we all already know...you only think it's bad when Republicans do it.

I wonder what they would be saying about the promised nationwide riots if trump had won...never mind...been there done that, we know the answer :hihi:

"Calif. is packed w/people"

You got a poll that shows that people choose FL over CA because of population density? Or are you making up anything you can that avoids the truth?

"If people wanted to move bc of politics, the warm states like Al, Miss, La, etc would be booming but their not."

I never said all red states are good states. But if politics had nothing to do with it, people would be moving equally to red states and blue states. If yuo look at the states where most people are moving to, they are disproportionately red.

I think 7 House Ds objected to the 2016 election. 147 R objected to the 2020 election. There never where any D plans to decertify any states elections and flip the electorial votes like the Rs tried to do. So even an actuary should know is a difference of magnitude bt the 2 or are you trying to be dishonest by equating 2 things which are of different magnitude?

Do you have any polls that show people choose Fl over CA bc of politics or are you trying to avoid the truth?

"I think 7 House Ds objected to the 2016 election. 147 R objected to the 2020 election"

Correct. The house Ds objected to multiple states, I think the Rs in 2020 only objected to PA? Is that correct? I may be wrong.

"There never where any D plans to decertify any states elections and flip the electorial votes like the Rs tried to do"

Please explain. If the Rs only objected to PA (maybe I'm completely wrong about that?), even if PA switched, that wouldn't have changed the election.

You're very conveniently ignoring that some democrats asked the electors to not vote for Trump. That was an attempt to get someone else elected.

Some of you have said that Trumps crime was undermining public confidence in our elections. How did the democrats who voted to object, not cause the public to lose confidence in our elections?

And why do democrats (if they think democracy is good) use superdelegates in their primaries? The superdelegates exist for one reason only - to un-do the will of the people, if the kingmakers wish to do so.

Paul, I'm admitting that what Trump did was awful, and I desperately don't want him to run again. But none of you, not one, can find any fault with a single thing the democrats did after the 2016 election, nor can you condemn the 2020 riots. Because nothing can be wrong when democrats do it. Rioting, trying to undermine election results you don't like, making false claims of election fraud - those things only matter when republicans do them.

how many private American citizens felt terrorized, physically endangered or their businesses' threatened by the activities during the summer of love? and how many felt the same during the three hours of irrational exuberance at the capitol? that's the difference, the drama queens here and on msnbc, cnn and the dem politicians can scream at the sky, but most people don't care or have forgotten about it...they just know biden sucks right now

Edit - and to me it isn't about Trump as much as the others who are afraid to call him out on his lies. There are very few Rs congressman who admit he lost.

And from an article today (2 undermining confidence in our elected officials):

On the show, hosted by Stephen K. Bannon, one of Mr. Trump’s top former advisers, Representatives Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene laid responsibility on Democrats, the Capitol Police, the federal government and others.

The idea that people other than Mr. Trump’s own supporters were responsible for the violence that day has become a popular conspiracy theory among the far right. There is no evidence that undercover agents or other outsiders played a role in the attack and fact checkers have worked to debunk similar claims aired on Fox News. The pair of lawmakers offered little evidence for their claims during the show.

Mr. Gaetz, a Florida Republican, repeated some of the unfounded claims on Thursday, including that the government and police tried to set up the protesters.

“We’re here to get to the truth behind Jan. 6, the federal government’s own involvement with it,” Mr. Gaetz said in his hourlong interview on “Bannon’s War Room.”

Remember, long before he was a judge, Merrick Garland prosecuted the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing — and earned a rep of being silent, methodical, and deadly effective.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"From what I remember they didn't want to change the election to Clinton - it was more they objected to Trump being elected"

True, thats correct. But Trump won fair and square, so where in the Constitution does it say they can try to change the results when they're sufficiently disappointed? They didn't like the result, so they tried to overturn it and get someone in they liked more. Wcich is what Trump tried to do.

"Different degree of magnitude."

How about putting kids in cages - fine when Obama did it. a crime against humanity when Trump did it.

Same with being opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons - fine when Obama and Hilary say it (didn't stop Obama from wining the Nobel Peace Prize), but when a Republican says it, they are hounded out of business, denied a chance to make a living.

I wonder if it means a lot less to most of America than it means to liberals right now. I wonder if people have shrugged it off.

may the force be with you....

pretty sure when joe was rambling about some battle between democracy and autocracy going on in his head, most American's were just worried about their most recent oil bill and their kid's school shutting down again...

do you think he knows he's president?...it's hard to tell sometimes...

do you think he runs again? I have no idea. He may be their best shot, it's stunning to me, how weak their bench is. The only formidable one is Michelle Obama, who I don't think could be beaten by anyone, I just hope she doesn't want it.

You want Trump to run again? I really don't. I keep hoping Condi Rice will step up, she'd be so great. I'll settle for Desantis, who seems like a guy who will govern like Trump without the ethical lapses. Doesn't let people dump all over him like Bush/McCain/Romney, but isn't a baby like Trump.

A striking image of the event shows both Cheneys on the front row of the Republican side of the nearly empty floor. Republicans have sought to downplay the severity of the attack that left many lawmakers fearing for their lives and having to flee for their safety. The GOP has in large part declined to participate in the day’s events.



Jim and scott and other keep making excuses

Mike Lindell says he'll be one of the opening acts at Trump's January 15 rally in Arizona, expects '60,000 people' to show up

can't wait

guess they never said any of it

a few more

what excuse have i made? it was a riot, they didn’t kill
anyone, some of them
may have hoped they were going to undo the election, that was never going to happen.

you’re all worked up that’s one congresspeople
probably feared for their lives

yet in the riots of summer 2020, dozens of people actually lost their lives.

youre more concerned about people
who feared for their lives but walked away without a scratch, then you are with dozens of people who were actually killed.

i’d love to hear you justify that. you’re saying it’s worse when AOC fears for her life at the hands of conservatives but is unharmed, than it is when people are actually murdered by liberal rioters?

makes all
kinds of sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re proving my point. you show republican senators who condemned the 1/6 riot, as i have done.

where are the similarly influential
democrats condemning the summer 2020 riots, which were far more violent and destructive by any rational measure?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

God, Jim's ignorance is profound today.

When authoritarians take over, everyone is shocked.

"Wait...those clowns?"

But the other side isn't working in secret. They're telling you exactly what they'll do.

They've promised -- and executed -- political violence.

And that was just the dress rehearsal for the next one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

post the most ignorant thing i’ve said, please, madam.

lobbing baseless insults is your way of conceding defeat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We can start with your claim that Democrats did the same thing in 2016. During that certification a total of 7 electors were faithless. 5 (count 'em FIVE Jim) didn't pledge for HILLARY CLINTON when they should have. The other two were Red states that pledged to other Republican candidates.

The Dems didn't ask anyone to overthrow the election. Even if all 7 were for Trump it wouldn't have made any difference.

You are completely and verifiably wrong.

After the 2016 election, the democrats did three separate things.

(1) they said Trump won because of Russian interference
(2) they asked electors to cast their votes for someone other than Trump
(3) a small number of democrats in congress formally objected to the electoral vote in multiple states.

They didn't use identical tactics that Trump did. But they (a small number of them) tried to get the electors to not vote for Trump, they tried to tell America that the election wasn't free and fair. At some high level, that's similar to what Trump did.

No two things are identical. There will always be some differences.

"The Dems didn't ask anyone to overthrow the election."

Demonstrably false. After the 2016 election, a small number of democrats in the house tried to do exactly that. It never had a chance of succeeding (neither did the republican efforts of 1/6), but that's precisely what they tried to do.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...allenge-233294

In 2020, 174 house republicans voted to object to the results in PA and/or AZ.

Do the electoral math. Even if the house GOP switched the electoral votes for both PA and AZ to Trump, Trump still loses.

Your defense of the democrats actions in 2016, are based in part on the fact that they could not have changed the results. I'd love to hear you explain why that doesn't apply to what the house republicans did. They also were mathematically guaranteed to be short of overturning the election.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...objectors.html


"Even if all 7 were for Trump it wouldn't have made any difference."

Even if the house republicans managed to convert PA and AZ electors to Trump, it wouldn't have made any difference. That's me, using your same exact logic.

Looks like Biden won 306 to 232. AZ has 11 electoral votes, PA has 20. Thats 31 electoral votes that the GOP questioned, and that's if you assume that all of them challenged both AZ and PA, which they didn't, some challenged one or the other. According to my math, what the house GOP did, could not possibly have changed the outcome. Best case for the GOP was Biden winning 275 to 263.

Long after the 2016 election, many many democrats referred to Trump as the "illegitimate president".

It's always OK whenever the left does anything.

You and Sean Hannity, separated at birth. Two thoughtless lemmings.

You are dismissing what the democrats did, because it had no chance of actually overturning the election. But you won't apply that logic to what the GOP did. You played favorites by party.

Destroyed by math.

What else ya got that I said, which was ignorant?

The electors were supposed to be supporting Clinton and didn't. You have it backwards. Pay attention...as for Russia, they likely did heavily influence the election.

Here's one of many stories reporting on democrats, after the 2016 election, urging electors not to vote for Trump.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...college-232635

Spence, Trump won the election. So please tell me how urging electors to not vote for the winner, isn't asking them to overthrow the election?