NYT: "Electoral Count Is Completed Despite Mayhem Incited by Trump"

I fell asleep around two o'clock in the morning and the finalization of the 12A based count of the Electoral College count had some time to go. Why? Oh well, even after an invasion -- first time since the Brits during the War of 1812 -- of the U.S. Capitol by "insurrectionists" (as called by people like Mitch McConnell, while also raising possible 14A implications), House Republicans kept up with a challenge of Pennsylvania electors. A senator went along to get us there, but the U.S. Senate (unlike for Arizona) waived the two hour debate period. Also, less senators (including loser of the Georgia Senate race, BOTH going to the Democrats while we nail-bit into the morning of 1/6) went along afterward, limiting things.

In request dated yesterday, Rep. Gohmert and putative Arizona electors requested Alito or SCOTUS itself to grant an "administrative stay against the Vice President’s invoking the Electoral Count Act’s dispute-resolution process." Rejecting, at least for now, another argument for a more substantive rejection, the Supreme Court today (after the fact) rejected relief without comment. For completeness, SCOTUS also dropped a press release about the next set of telephone arguments and the retirement of another official.

This continual litigation is a mixture of farce and danger. Rick Hasen, the Election Law Blog guy, calmed people down about any of those things actually leading to success. The whole thing was ridiculous, including the basic fact that even if you accepted the Art. II "legislature only" argument, there wouldn't actually be enough votes in question to change the result. [The argument very well might have five votes at SCOTUS, but it would change the current law, while also causing various problems since it would hurt addressing various needs.] But, the long term distrust of the system -- Hasen didn't like Stacey Abrams (what will she do next?!) refusing to fully concede in her governor race too -- was something he is quite serious about.

The distrust of the system and allegations of fraud and irregularities was behind the challenges to the electoral count. The breadth -- a majority of the House Republicans and multiple senators (Cruz, Hawley, Kennedy, Lummis, Rick Scott, Hyde-Smith, Tuberville, Roger Marshall of Kansas) -- and support of Trump underlines the difference with some token effort like in 2004 or support of only a small subset of House Dems in 2000 and 2016. It also was behind along with whatever guides such miscreants the attack of the Capitol, with Trump praising the protestors and Hawley shaking his fist in support.

If there aren't lawsuits, the Democrats should have control of the Senate (50-50 though they are quite open for someone else to join the cool table) by the end of the month or maybe early February. It is amazing that the Democrats won both raises in Georgia, including a black minister and young (33) replacement for the full term seat. This allowed Biden to move to appoint our old friend Merrick Garland as AG, having reasonable hope that the key D.C. Court of Appeals slot won't be open indefinitely. As with Supreme Court, I like him in that slot. He has long experience and is a no drama hire while other great choices were chosen for supporting positions. Plus, I have no idea that he will be "soft" in going after the Trump Administration or in other ways.

Pence and McConnell was firm that the election has been decided and the attack of the Capitol was outrageous. Neither, of course, actually put the blame at Trump's hands though some other Dems did. There are also a lot of questions about just went down, including how the Capitol was invaded. What if they had guns and bombs and used them? We need to find out before, somewhere down the line, worse happens. And, people will be all like "who would have known?" The Trump people jumping ship, even Sen. Toomey (PA) against the challenges kept on saying he wanted him re-elected, should have.

For now, the Congress -- after completing its duty at around 4AM -- will not be in session (except for brief pro forma Senate sessions) until the Inauguration. That is wrong. The House of Representatives should impeach Trump or at the very least be in session if something comes up. The usual suspects drew up impeachment charges related to the Georgia phone call and incitement of the insurrectionists, new member Cori Bush also supporting expulsion of those who supported the challenges. There is also a lot of 25A talk, even National Review finding President Pence appealing.

A wounded animal is dangerous and a lifetime ban from office would be a good symbol, especially for acts after a failed re-election. Either way, a line was crossed yesterday, including by the Republican enablers. 

ETA: Twitter did ban him and when he tried to whine about being blocked via his official account, deleted it there.  Pelosi is open to impeachment, Pence not taking her calls on the 25A.  But, McConnell is all "oh well ... we settled on only pro forma sessions [during the challenge ... I cringed at the time ... why did not Democrat object?] ... so we need unanimous support to have any trial before the Trump leaves." Such bullshit.  

Still worth it, but when he does a bunch of shit before the end, it's all on the Republicans.  In part, to put them on record.