https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS
I know he\u2019s a blowhard, @greg_doucette, but this is inciting violence, no?
— ScubaVal #VoteGeorgiaVote (@MajikaZulJin) January 2, 2021
The audience has been standing by with itchy fingers. https://t.co/SpZ5XTNn7M
@greg_doucette Sedition finally? https://t.co/34vfNIPTPY
— grumpy_gator (@jonb13x) January 2, 2021
I know he\u2019s a blowhard, @greg_doucette, but this is inciting violence, no?
— ScubaVal #VoteGeorgiaVote (@MajikaZulJin) January 2, 2021
The audience has been standing by with itchy fingers. https://t.co/SpZ5XTNn7M
Um, this doesn\u2019t satisfy all four elements?
— Alex (@arg11) January 2, 2021
Overturning the election would be a lawless action, wouldn't it?
— Harley Quinn (@HarleyVicQuinn) January 2, 2021
And what Trump is trying to get Pence and Congressional Republicans to do on January 6 is imminent, isn't it?
I would think this qualifies. But you're the expert.
It has to look like the group that planned to kidnap the governor of MI? They had the four elements?
— Marquis Lafayette: "Constitutional" "Lawyer" (@RenegadeSci) January 2, 2021
Which part doesn't it meet? My layman's understanding would suggest it does, so I'm wondering where the disconnect is
— Max FKA LastGeeksDying (@Titanmatrix) January 2, 2021
This needs to be prosecuted. In any reasonable estimation, statements intended to cause this kind of action any time in the near future should be considered "imminent." I consider the next 3 weeks to be in the "imminent" timeframe.
— GrahamIsThisCat (@GrahamThis) January 2, 2021
I think I'm done following apologists for terrorism.
— GrahamIsThisCat (@GrahamThis) January 2, 2021
Can we at least say Gohmert is \u201cflirting\u201d with incitement? We saw how the Proud Boys pounced on Trump saying \u201cstand back and stand by\u201d. I worry Gohmert\u2019s words will lead to violence on the streets. If that happens and they sing his praises will that qualify as incitement? THX!
— Rebel Pony (@Corri_Girl) January 2, 2021
...wait, really? So if I said something that's otherwise incitement, but staple "in 30 days" onto the end, it's no longer incitement because it's not imminent?
— Fen-nic Hartley \U0001f51e (@nichartley) January 2, 2021
We have a few new people here since our December 2019 event, so let's start things off with some background \U0001f62c
— T. Greg "'Constitutional Lawyer'" Doucette (@greg_doucette) December 4, 2020
What would the legal result of the proposed objections by the six Senators (need House & Senate) be?
— Alexa O'Brien (@alexadobrien) January 2, 2021
And if they do manage it Pelosi takes over? Is that right?
— Phil Wheatley \u26bd\ufe0f (@philski68) January 3, 2021
Cruz\u2019s call for a ten day audit/election committee... there no legal authority for this to even occur correct?
— Justin Rakowski (@JustinRakowski) January 3, 2021
@greg_doucette sure you've answered this question somewhere down the line but is there a 2 hour recess for EACH objection or are all objections handled under one 2 hour recess?
— ReediculousS (@Rbd9787) January 3, 2021
So we are looking at 24 hours of debate then?
— Subtle Clever Username (@Noneya_Mindyers) January 3, 2021
And each person only gets 5 minutes to speak (also probably per objection), so the long-winded halfwits (Gohmert) won't be able to drag it out very long.
— Mithras Angel (place blue checkmark here) (@mithrasangel) January 3, 2021
Who gets discretion on who talks. Is It just objectors or counterpoints may also be allotted time?
— WillisisCray (@WillisisCray) January 3, 2021
can pelosi just ignore everybody
— Michael Durkin (@mdurkin86) January 3, 2021
@greg_doucette What's the likelihood and desirability of a new constitutional amendment which says that presidents cannot pardon anybody in the last 100 days of each term?
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
What's the chances we ever see a Constitutional Amendment in our lifetimes, at this rate?
— Jeremy (@11JustBreathe11) December 24, 2020
This one maybe: https://t.co/apWQyLD2i3
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
If you could unilaterally add an amendment, what would it be?
— KJJBAA (@KJJBAA) December 24, 2020
Yes Wyoming rule. No on 3 senators. The senate is broken now that CA has 39M people and Wyoming has 500k. Adding more senators doesn\u2019t fix that. Need to add some semblance of balance.
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 24, 2020