Certifying the Vote.

[acbytesla]

That isn't going to speed anything up.

Democrats are not going to give Republicans a two-hour soapbox to spew propaganda unopposed. Nor should they. They should speak to defend against the objections and put on the record that the claims of widespread election fraud are false and have been proven to be false. And that the use of this type of objection is a dangerous attempt to subvert democracy. I expect even some Republicans will speak condemning the the objections.

This isn't a game.

Also, these are politicians. Many who live for this kind of limelight. I doubt many are going to pass on the opportunity. The speeches are likely to be separated fairly equally between Democrats and Republicans. But the only a quarter of the GOP Senators are supporting the objection. That means 88 percent of the speeches in the Senate will be for accepting the Biden votes. In the House it will be more like 66 percent. Either way, at the end of the debate session, both Houses will vote to accept or reject the votes.

 

[Tommok]

They can do that.

Could this be challenged?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Silence often is read as agreement or permission.

Those that argue someone should not address someone's else in(s)ane rants are fools.

The Democrats might have an option of walking out, letting the idiots speak for two hours, walking back in and moving on.

The other option which I'm not sure is viable is to make the meeting private so the Republicans have no audience.

A third option so they keep half of the 2 hours is to talk about coups and dictatorships around the world and in history. For example, news of how Maduro took control of Venezuela after Chavez would be a good topic. Or they could talk about both Chavez and Maduro.

 

[Trebuchet]

Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the Senate president pro tempore, says he and not Vice President Mike Pence will preside over the certification of Electoral College votes, since "we don't expect him to be there."

And he hasn't made his mind up.

Or maybe not!

 

[BobTheCoward]

So the two hour debate is in separate chambers. What does cspan show? Do the republicans just speak at the same time? One side probably can't delay one hour waiting on the other chamber.

 

[plague311]

So the two hour debate is in separate chambers. What does cspan show? Do the republicans just speak at the same time? One side probably can't delay one hour waiting on the other chamber.

I would assume there are more than one C-Span feeds, or an option to setup more should there be a need.

 

[portlandatheist]

I see this more as giving a middle finger to democracy than as a stunt

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And he hasn't made his mind up.

Or maybe not!

That's bloody weird. Sounds like they are helping Pence avoid Trump's ire. ... Or not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would assume there are more than one C-Span feeds, or an option to setup more should there be a need.

There are three and they usually cover the Senate and House on separate channels.

Also you can live stream the coverage as well.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There are three and they usually cover the Senate and House on separate channels.

Also you can live stream the coverage as well.

But what do they do for the main channel? Pick who they think is the most important speaker?

Or do republicans try some trick to have only one at a time?

Or do any republicans come out of this with hurt feelings?

 

[plague311]

But what do they do for the main channel? Pick who they think is the most important speaker?

Or do republicans try some trick to have only one at a time?

Or do any republicans come out of this with hurt feelings?

Off-topic, Bob. Drop it. It makes no difference since it's ratings mean nothing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Off-topic, Bob. Drop it. It makes no difference since it's ratings mean nothing.

If this is a political stunt, I have questions about the mechanics of it.

 

[Minoosh]

But what do they do for the main channel? Pick who they think is the most important speaker?

Or do republicans try some trick to have only one at a time?

Or do any republicans come out of this with hurt feelings?

Maybe C-SPAN can livestream the counting of votes in Fulton County.

 

[alfaniner]

How's Trump going to command the news cycle tomorrow (or whenever the debates get done) when VP Pence announces PE Biden as the new President? A simple Tweet -- "PENCE! YOU'RE FIRED!"

(I don't even know if he can fire Pence, but one can be sure he's looking into it.)

(eta -- He can't. But that won't stop him from trying.)

 

[Cavemonster]

So, since we're looking at bad-faith-scenarios left and right, let's just assume that for some reason one party has majorities in both chambers, and the presidential candidate from the other party wins the presidency.

Would it then be within the authority of Congress to just reject the electoral votes for the winning candidate and install their guy instead?

The arguments I'm hearing go along the lines of "don't worry about such an atrocity, after all the Democrats control the House (and there are some Republican Senators with some leftovers of a spine as well)". This doesn't really convince me that this process isn't ripe for blatant abuse at some other time.

If the same party controls the white house and both houses of congress, it doesn't really matter what's technically in their legal authority. Trump and his circle have done a great number of illegal things. The fact that he lacked the legal authority to do them didn't matter because there was no power to hold him accountable.

There is no difference between a party with a monopoly on federal power negating the will of the people legally or illegally. Who's going to stop them if they don't respect the rule of law? The supreme court? They have no enforcement capacity.

Whether the authority is technically legal or not, there's really just the one check on the federal government if they were to try such a thing, the threat of violent removal from power by citizens.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I'm happy to submit many certificates all purporting to be true. Purporting just means stated to be true? I can state lots of things.

What prevents this from having to open thousands in the future?

That is a question that does not have a specific answer. It has never happened and it appears Congress never contemplated it happening.

If a certificate of votes does not have a corresponding certificate of ascertainment of elector received from the Archivist, the President of the Senate may declare it to not actually be a purported certificate. Otherwise, it looks like they would all have to be opened.

If that were to occur, Congress would probably know about it in December and would likely take action to change the law to deal with it or establish special rules to deal with it when the joint resolution providing for the counting of vote is approved.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Just wondering... When they give their little talks... Do democrats have to stay on topic (basically just repeating "no fraud, this harms democracy" over and over)? Or can they talk about anything?

I'm not sure about the Senate, but I think there are House administration rules that say speeches on the floor have to be on topic.

What they could do (if allowed) is use their alloted time to attack trump and the republicans. Remind people that they are trying to steal the election on behalf of a man who bankrupted a casino and suggested injecting bleach to cure covid. Or after gym Jordan speaks, remind everyone about the assault allegations. Or after Nunes speaks talk about him trying to sue a cow.

Under Senate Rule 19 "No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator."

That law is a result of a two Senators disparaging each other and accusing each other of having unscrupulous reasons for supporting certain bills. In 1902 a literal fistfight broke out between "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman and John McLaurin that erupted into a brawl.

This became an issue in 2017 during the Senate confirmation hearings for Jeff Sessions's nomination for Attorney General. Sessions was a sitting Senator. Part of a confirmation hearing is basically to call the person's character into question. Democrats wants raise issues about Sessions's racism. Republicans said that would break this Senate rule. Sessions had been denied confirmation to become a federal judge in the 1980s because of his racist comments. Warren attempted to read from the Senate record for that previous hearing that included the issues of racism. McConnell shut her down with his famous "Nevertheless, she persisted" comment. The Senate ethics committee reviewed the issue and allowed Warren to read part, but not all, of the record.

I don't think the House has exactly the same thing, but I think they have similar sorts of rules where this would not be allowed.

 

[Segnosaur]

Just wondering... When they give their little talks... Do democrats have to stay on topic (basically just repeating "no fraud, this harms democracy" over and over)? Or can they talk about anything?

I'm not sure about the Senate, but I think there are House administration rules that say speeches on the floor have to be on topic.

A shame. Would have been fun to see otherwise.

What they could do (if allowed) is use their alloted time to attack trump and the republicans. Remind people that they are trying to steal the election on behalf of a man who bankrupted a casino and suggested injecting bleach to cure covid. Or after gym Jordan speaks, remind everyone about the assault allegations. Or after Nunes speaks talk about him trying to sue a cow.

Under Senate Rule 19 "No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator."

Assuming that that is an exact quote of the rule...

In that case, they could have gotten creative... House democrats could point out the bad acts of the senate republicans, senate democrats could point out the bad acts of the house republicans.

And of course since Trump isn't a member of congress, he'd be fair game for everyone.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

No states have sent two sets of electors this year.

There are non-electors who have sent their votes to....someone, but that is not from the states. Their claims that their votes were approved by the state legislatures is nonsense, because the state legislatures have not been in session since the election, and therefore have had no opportunity to approve alternate electors, even if they wanted to.

There is only one set of electors for each state. The votes are 306 - 232 in favor of Biden.

the law requires that "Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A"

I don't see anything allowing for fake certificates to be weeded out before this point. I'm not sure how this is going to actually play out. Pence may put both certificates into the record and call for a vote. Or he may declare only one to be legitimate.

Pence may hand both to the teller and then the teller says something like, "Mr. President, there are two certificates purporting to be of the electoral vote of the State of Arizona. The first does not have attached a certificate of ascertainment issued by the Governor of Arizona and does not seem to be regular in form or authentic. The second has attached a certificate of ascertainment issued by the Governor of Arizona and seems to be regular in form or authentic, and reads as follows..."

We'll have to see how they decide to handle the Parliamentary procedures.

In any event, if it goes to a vote the real certificate will be accepted. The the House and Senate do not agree, the law says they count the votes on the certificate sign and sealed by the Governor anyway.

 

[Vixen]

So we have several Congresscritters who say they will object to the certification of the electoral votes by Pence on the 6th. The relevant law is here; https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title3-section15&num=0&edition=prelim



So if I understand this, there will be no problem for the GOP to find a Senator and a Representative who will object, but it takes a vote by a majority of Congress to reject the electoral vote or votes? Seeing how a sizable portion of the GOP opposes overturning the electoral vote, I would assume that the objecting members of the GOP are wasting their time?

Ranb

How long will this go on? I've almost run out of popcorn.

<fx drums fingers>