17 GOP AG's and 106 GOP representatives supported an attempted coup.

You need to go back and read earlier posts. They spent several pages trying to convince me it was illegal.

 

I promise you are the only pewrson who thinks that. Actually, I don't think you even think that, you just wanted to post something that sounded cool to yourself.

 

You can make no such promise unless you have checked with every person.

 

I just did.

 

An obvious impossibility.

 

Call it a sure bet.

 

I am sure my wife does not agree with you.

 

So she says.

 

Not to my knowledge. I just know that there is not anything on the face of this earth that everyone will agree with.

 

Not s coup...

 

How can they be prosecuted?

 

IF they affidavits are entered into court as testimony, and a prosecutor feels he can prove they intentionally lied, they can prosecute for perjury. Or, a judge can simply ask the prosecution to bring a charge for perjury against someone for perjuring himself in his courtroom, if that person admits the perjury or evidence shows it definitively. (Which Flynn basically did admit, for example.)

 

What is the penalty for treason?

 

How would a prosecutor prove this for any of the affidavits? More importantly, are affidavits generally accepted as evidence if they are not proven?

 

Why does it not surprise me that libs think following the constitutional process is a ‘coup’. Did you sit out civics?

 

Not at all. Nobody in government wants an election overturned after the fact and I tend to agree with that. If it were provable that there were more ballots than voters they still wouldn't overturn it. Since nobody can or will investigate and since there is not sufficient time then it is what it is. Hopefully we will tighten up the electoral system and clear up as much fraud as possible for future elections.

 

Yes, affidavits are used as evidence in court all the time. Since they are signed and given under oath, they are considered proof. The truth is that if there were more ballots than voters, it can no longer be proven. The election is history. Let's hope we can tighten things up for the future.

 

In the cases of the 126 GOP reps, Pelosi officially sanctioning them by virtue of a House vote would be a good place to start.


Fourteenth Amendment

• Section 3
  No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

"These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each member swears to support and defend, as well as violate the rules of our House of Representatives, which explicitly forbid members from committing unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber," he adds.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...hese-gop-house-members-shouldnt-even-be-sworn

 

Then why did 126 GOP reps add their names to a lawsuit that would have overturned the election?

"They are both elected and appointed, selected by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Some have served for decades — while others took the bench only months ago.

One is a former high school teacher, another the first Native American woman appointed to a federal judgeship. A third worked for years for a Republican governor who has been a vocal supporter of President Trump.

Since the November election, they have all ruled in court against Trump or one of his allies seeking to challenge or overturn the presidential vote.

In a remarkable show of near-unanimity across the nation’s judiciary, at least 86 judges — ranging from jurists serving at the lowest levels of state court systems to members of the United States Supreme Court — rejected at least one post-election lawsuit filed by Trump or his supporters."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

 

Saying that legally going to court is engaging in insurrection or rebellion is a bigger threat to the Constitution than anything they have done..

 

What politicians believe and do in public and private isn't necessarily the same. Remember politicians are interested primarily in re-election. We simply don't know what they really think for the most part. They politicize everything.

 

As tempting as it is to blame both sides equally in this regard find me an example of an instance when 126 Dem congresspeople signed on to a lawsuit attempting to overturn a presidential election to keep their party's prez in office by disqualifying the legal votes counted in 4 states.

 

The question is whether they are legal votes. The Supreme Court was asked to rule on that issue. They refused to take the case. Exactly what was illegal about that procedure?

 

I'm a non partisan. I'm a conservative to be sure but certainly not a partisan. I don't think like partisans think.

 

If true then surely you recognize the "they're all the same" mantra has been proven to be completely inaccurate.