Pages

Saturday, January 2, 2021

Good For Ted Cruz

I like Senator Ted Cruz's idea of establishing an Electoral Commission, involving a "10 day audit." This idea is patterned on the Electoral Commission following the disputed presidential election of 1876. You can read about that election and the resulting dispute and resolution at Wikipedia: Electoral Commission. Here's a key paragraph:


Facing an unparalleled constitutional crisis and intense public pressure, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and the Republican-controlled Senate agreed to formation of the bipartisan Electoral Commission to settle the election. It consisted of fifteen members: five each from the House and the Senate, plus five Supreme Court justices. Eight members were Republicans; seven were Democrats. The Commission ultimately voted along party lines to award all twenty disputed votes to Hayes, thus assuring his electoral victory by a margin of 185–184. Congress, meeting in a joint session on March 2, 1877, affirmed that decision, officially declaring Hayes the winner by one vote.


Cruz's idea has garnered support from 11 Senators so far, but I wouldn't be surprised to see additional Senators get on board with the idea. So far supporters include:


Ron Johnson (WI), James Lankford (OK), Steve Daines (MT), John Kennedy (LA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), and Mike Braun (IN), and Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (WY.), Roger Marshall (KS), Bill Hagerty (TN), and Tommy Tuberville (AL).


Below, per Zerohedge, is the statement from the Cruz led group. No doubt Cruz is responding to Senator Josh Hawley's initiative, and that's fine. Both have their eyes on 2024 and, in this constitutional crisis, the time is now for these two senators--both of them fine constitutional lawyers. The main point is that this is a good idea for the country:


"America is a Republic whose leaders are chosen in democratic elections. Those elections, in turn, must comply with the Constitution and with federal and state law.

"When the voters fairly decide an election, pursuant to the rule of law, the losing candidate should acknowledge and respect the legitimacy of that election. And, if the voters choose to elect a new office-holder, our Nation should have a peaceful transfer of power.

"The election of 2020, like the election of 2016, was hard fought and, in many swing states, narrowly decided. The 2020 election, however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.

"Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.

"And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread. Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.' That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).

"Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.

"But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear. It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations.

"Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.

"On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to certify the 2020 election results. That vote is the lone constitutional power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud.

"At that quadrennial joint session, there is long precedent of Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. And, in both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged.

"The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.

"In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

"We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission's findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.

"Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.

"We are not naïve. We fully expect most if not all Democrats, and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise. But support of election integrity should not be a partisan issue. A fair and credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20-would dramatically improve Americans' faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President. We owe that to the People.

"These are matters worthy of the Congress, and entrusted to us to defend. We do not take this action lightly. We are acting not to thwart the democratic process, but rather to protect it. And every one of us should act together to ensure that the election was lawfully conducted under the Constitution and to do everything we can to restore faith in our Democracy."

 

In addition to the slap at the craven behavior of the SCOTUS, this statement is a clear challenge to Mitch McConnell's leadership that McConnell will not be able to simply ignore. Additionally, even in the likely event that this initiative is rejected, a deserved pall of illegitimacy will cover the puppet regime the Establishment is attempting to foist on America.


50 comments:

  1. 1st) I expect the Wikipedia reference to the 1877 election commission to be updated soon to reflect a more liberal interpretation of the whole process.

    2nd) I highly, highly, doubt my 2 Illinois Senators will care anything about precedent. All they care about is their own self-indulgence, lifetime healthcare, Stipends, and conning the average American.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And rising to my expectations Senator John Cornyn (R-DS) appears to sit this one out. Beto was an absolute moron to run against Cruz rather than Cornyn, but then again you should never run against a member of your own team.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    2. @Tom S.; Yeah, Cornyn is a big mystery. Too much of a deep stater apparently like cocaine Mitch. Perhaps the people of Texas should think about a recall.

      Delete
    3. Not really a mystery. A wholly owned property of oligarchy. If Henry Clay (the Mayor of Lajitas, TX not the Senator from Kentucky) were resurrected I would knock on doors to help him primary John Cornyn.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    4. The whole committee listed in the article by Mark is a bunch of RINOs. How can that satisfy any one who supports the Constitution?

      Delete
  2. and, the GA GOP Senators may as well go all in and announce Monday night at the rally with the President that, if re-elected, they will also support this initiative...at this point, what do they have to lose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what do they have to lose?

      A lot, if they don't get permission from McConnell.

      Sundance is VERY cynical about Cruz & Co. and he has a point: it didn't happen until Josh Hawley pulled the trigger ON HIS OWN.

      Delete
    2. And not until after McConnell's call.

      I have a high regard for Cruz, but this is a stunt designed to bring deplorables to heel.

      Delete
    3. my point was that something like this is what they may need to put them over the top on 5 Jan with reluctant GA voters. Who cares what Mitch thinks if you don't win re-election...but, hey, what do I know?

      Delete
  3. And who who do the audit that everyone would trust?

    The 10 day commission could easily be accepted by the Dems, just pretend to look busy, spend most of the time arguing about procedures of how to go about it the right way, stonewall and run out the clock. Then on day 8 you demand more time as the issues are too numerous and complex and the American people deserve a thorough report. Bingo, the 20th is here and we got to go forward with the inauguration, the report from the commission will come later and could be useful for future elections. Sorry /sarc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, another wunderwaffen.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    2. I have always liked Cruz but after the past several years of a succession of Republicans carrying out hearings and investigations without a single result I'll sit this out until I see some actions that match the words. I wrote to Cruz today to tell him that.

      Delete
    3. SWC ways in on the 10 day commission at RedState here:

      https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/01/02/ted-cruz-and-ten-other-senators-propose-a-commission-to-audit-the-election-results-in-the-disputed-states-n303367

      Towards the end he concludes:
      "I do not think there is any conceivable set of circumstances by which the Democrats in the House would ever agree to any outcome of such a Commission-led effort that resulted in a second term for Pres. Trump. The fact that the announcement today doesn’t include any details about how the commission would be constituted or what it’s goals would be, in addition to the lack of specificity as to what states would be “audited”, is a pretty strong indicator that this is not an effort intended to lead to the same outcome as 1876."

      I have to say, I feel validated about my earlier post, SWC explains it just a lot more eloquent and informed that I am able to.

      Delete
    4. Cruz's group cites the composition of the 1877 Commission and states it should be used as precedent. While the statement doesn't explicitly call for a certain composition, that would presumably be a matter for negotiation--just as it was in 1877. I've said I think the outcome is unlikely, I do think this is the right approach. They have also said that they will vote against certification if the Commission is rejected.

      The stated goal is to conduct an audit and any other investigation deemed relevant. That seems fine to me. It likely won't happen, but it's the best that these senators can do in the circumstances.

      Delete
    5. One detail that SWC analysis of the Electoral Commission caught my eye: part of set it in in motion would include Congress recessing during the 10 days.

      I can't help but wonder if this is some clever ruse to get Congress to recess; once it does, perhaps that opens a door that is otherwise closed to Trump.

      (I have no idea what that might be.)

      I know POTUS can make recess appointments of superior officials w/o Senate confirmation if the Senate is in recess. Are there other powers POTUS gets to exercise during Congressional recesses?

      Delete
  4. I think it will be interesting to see what happens on Monday when the loser of the Iowa House race (a Dimm) will ask the House to seat him instead of his GOP opponent who finished officially 6 votes ahead. While this maneuver has happened in the past (during the 1980s), if the Dimms pull this fast one on Monday, the GOP can do the same on Wednesday and say, "well, you started it"

    It's gonna be a helluva week!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rather o/t, but here is text of 3 U.S.C. § 1, which PA violated, when they allowed votes after 3 Nov:
    "The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on **the Tuesday** next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President."
    I'm aghast, that the GOP didn't go to the Fed'l Courts, to argue that PA's allowing votes to be cast after "the Tuesday next", clearly violated this 3 U.S.C. § 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Mouse; there was actually quite a write-up I read on this a couple of days ago. Someone (whom I forget and will have to find) tried to get a SC court clerk to docket this and they struck it down BEFORE the Texas lawsuit was struck down by the SC. Can't recall exactly where I read this just yet; will have to locate. It's fairly recent article too.

      Delete
    2. @ ...Cardigan

      I read it to. It wasn't "struck down" the clerk simply refused to put it on the docket. Technically no member of the SCoTUS ever saw it.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    3. https://federalinquirer.com/new-election-emergency-application-to-justice-alito-can-a-clerk-overrule-the-supreme-court/

      Here's what I read, though on a different site.
      Tom S.

      Delete
  6. Sorry, I cannot support one more "blue ribbon commission". All that does is run out the clock. Some GOP folks might take it seriously and see the fraud. The Never Trumpers and those on the Left will not even look and will never see the fraud. Nothing gained.

    The best move is to simply force the issue on the 6th. Maybe start with some voter fraud arrests, just to get their attention, perhaps Ruby F. and others from that overnight GA count video.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If anyone is expecting politicians and a political process to correct the PROBLEM...I've got a bridge I need to sell

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More to the point, Do you have a solution to sell?

      Delete
    2. POTUS enacts the Insurrection Act, designates who the Criminals are specifically ( with factual evidence ), Military Tribunals to legally process them. and yes, you will call that a political process, but I will call it the Constitutional Process - it takes the political finagling out of it under a constitutionally accepted temporary authoritarian procedure to correct political abuses.

      Delete
    3. Stop being an idiot.

      The president IS A POLITICIAN--or didn't you notice? He was elected, just like Ted Cruz was elected. Just a difference in scale and authority.

      The Insurrection Act is NOT SELF EXECUTING. It requires more than just the president for it to be put into effect. As it stands now, there is no guarantee that either federal law enforcement or federal military forces would obey Trump.

      Use of the Insurrection Act would involve a political process, in that it would require political PERSUASION of a critical mass of both the populace and the government to follow Trump. That critical process of PERSUASION is exactly what Cruz's idea is designed to get rolling. PERSUASION at the state level has largely failed.

      Delete
    4. Honestly I think the Q kids jumped from that failed shark to the insurrection / EO shark. These magic wand fix all theories and conspiracies are just unbelievable. You would have to read law like "See Spot Run"to to even think it's possible.

      Not to mention they scream hypocrisy. Never do they consider taking action, someone else is always expected to take action for them. It's disgusting IMHO!

      Sorry, tired if the stupid...

      Delete
  8. Apparently Trump likes the commission idea and he's been selling it to Biden. I just came across this transcript of a call he had with Biden a few minutes ago...

    Transcript of Phone Call between President Donald J. Trump and Joseph R. Biden, January 3, 2020 at noon EST.

    DJT: Hello, Joe? Don here. Calling from the White House.

    Jill Biden: Sorry Donald. Its Dr. Biden. I’ll have to go get Joe, he’s down in the basement. I think he's up by now.


    JRB: Hello, Dan. Nice to talk, man. Merry Christmas, er…Happy Holidays. Happy New Year.

    DJT: So…Joe. I’ll get straight to the point. We’ve been looking at the election results.

    JRB: Yeah. Tough loss, man. What with those rallies...Jeez. The people just want a change. Time to heal. Time for unity. When are you conceding, bub?

    DJT: That’s what I want to discuss with you, Joe. I didn’t lose. You did.

    JRB: Nice try, man. See you at the Capitol January 20th. Don’t forget your mask.

    DJT: Joe. Listen. I’ve had Ratcliffe and my people over at DoD and the NSA going over the results. We’ve found proof of fraud that flips the result in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan. Documented proof. Election officials. Phone calls. Emails. Illegal votes. Votes changed. Hard evidence. Conclusive. I win. You lose.

    JRB: C’mon man! You’ve been trying that malarkey since November 4th. Nobody believes you. Ask Mitt Romney. Ask Ben Sasse. Ask the New York Times! You’re a one horse pony, man!

    DJT: No Joe. Its like this: I want you to support Cruz’s commission proposal.

    JRB: Cut the crap, man. Want to do pushups? Let’s go. Meet you at the Mall.

    DJT: No, Joe. Its like this. We’ve got proof. My people have sent your people a copy of what we’ve got. Ask your people to show it to you.

    JRB: C’mon man. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier. You’ve got nothing.

    DJT: Not only that, Joe, we’ve got bank records, wire transfers, tax returns on your finances, Joe…and emails, texts, and call transcripts of you and Hunter taking money from the Chinese. And the Ukrainians. Here, let me play a tape for you.

    [Trump plays tape.]

    JRB: You think I’m the Big Guy? Give me a break, man. That’s the Russians talking.

    DJT: So here’s the deal, Joe. This stuff I’ve got will destroy you. Joe, you know this. And maybe bring down the country, too. Take a look at the stuff we’ve sent over. I want you to announce you’re supporting the Cruz commission. I want you to do this tomorrow morning at 9am Eastern. On network TV.

    JRB: Hey look, George, you’re full of it. Try me. I gotta go now. See you on the 20th.

    ReplyDelete
  9. To Mark's point at least Cruz et al are moving the narrative - we are here in Georgia, and the continued light and attention from the continued hearings by some of our state legislators keep this in the forefront and feed us who believe the election was stolen with continued hope and optimism; plus the bigger catch is they reveal new and bigger frauds and vote manipulation. Cruz is starting with a sellable position, which arguably seems reasonable - plus it gives them a basis to object; that is, they offer a reasonable option with the committee, knowing it won't be accepted, and if that isn't done then they have the right to object; at which time there is evidence and arguments to be presented. At some point the evidence will become undeniable, indisputable and will demand some accountability, whether by law enforcement or a court. That is the hope, and Cruz needs a plan to get there - this is the first step, and we ALL need to encourage it; if you all aren't calling and emailing and texting your own Fed level senators and house members, you frankly have no point sharing your views here with Mark.
    Tom from Atlanta

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Tom. I'm frankly disappointed with some of the lack of reasoning in comments lately.

      Delete
    2. To my knowledge, there is nothing about a 10 day time schedule for something like this written in stone anywhere. Two hours is what I've read. Cruz is creating political theatre to determine who's on-board with the commission process and who's not. The facts shared during this "debate" will need to be extremely crucial and overwhelming. Given that's a long shot right now, we'll soon find out what our politicians stand for. Frankly, I give it no more than a 5-10% chance of success.

      Delete
    3. Of COURSE it's highly unlikely to succeed in the sense that we'd like it to. But it's not political theater only for the moment--it's a marker going forward, too. Yes, for the political ambitions of Cruz and Hawley, but also for the electorate. To "who's on-board."

      Delete
    4. It's not political theater only for the moment, but even for the moment, it puts the Dems in a sort of box.
      If they let it happen, it legitimizes GOP beefs as being *very* worthy of attn.
      If they block it, they look like they're trying to cover up very bad sh*t.
      Either way, it feeds into secessionist etc. sentiment.

      Delete
    5. @Mark; agreed, my meaning by political theatre was meant to imply it as an "event" or a "moment in time" or as you say a "marker". Theatre as an opportunity to assess by the electorate. Think we're in violent agreement. LOL.

      Delete
    6. I wasn't actually disagreeing--just drawing more out of your comment.

      Delete
  10. Trump is showing how corrupt and aloof elected GOP officials and the “conservative” press are from voter concerns. He is using the election fraud to drive this home, and shine a giant spot light on how the election was stolen from him.

    It’s an amazing, simple purity test. And I’m surprised at who is failing the test, and those passing.

    Truthfully, what does Trump have to lose? An Axios article stated Trump was dividing the GOP party. To me this means Trump is right over the target.

    And Trump is destroying the Overton Window on voter fraud. Before the narrative on voter fraud was it happened, but only in blue cities, and had an insignificant impact. And any questioning of voter fraud was racist! And voter suppression by the gop was a much bigger issue!

    That is no longer the narrative.

    New narrative.

    1. Presidential Election was stolen
    2. Establishment, both parties, courts, and law enforcement do not care about voter fraud and are ignoring hard evidence from a state to federal level.
    3. Voter fraud protections are a joke in the US.
    4. Internet companies are censoring news on voter fraud
    5. Voter ID is needed
    6. Mail in ballots are open to fraud
    7. Trump is the only one fighting voter fraud, with a few recent exceptions

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For details on recent evidence of some of this (esp. Georgia) fraud, see Andrea Widburg (much on Scott Adams' take) today at Am Thinker.
      "I highly recommend watching all the testimony from the Data Integrity Group because it discusses the completely bizarre anomalies in the hard data.... you’ll see the data showing that Trump lost votes."

      Delete
  11. I hope the appropriate people know this info and can use it.

    "GA’s SoS Raffensperger Gave Hackers Roadmap To Infiltrate Machines A Year Before Election"
    ...
    "GA SoS Brad Raffensperger posted what is essentially a guide to hack Dominion, ES&S, and Smartmatic voting systems during the summer of 2019, one year ahead of the 2020 elections. This made every aspect of the Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite open for business to anyone in the business of skewing elections. Raffensperger gave them a year to prepare with the actual components Dominion uses and perfect the methodologies used to hack the GA election."

    https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2021/01/03/gas-sos-raffensperger-gave-hackers-roadmap-to-infiltrate-machines-a-year-before-election/

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Per Jen Dyer
      Looks like the next stage of Trump's efforts:

      She also describes the article at creativedestruction, mentioned above, and the timing and meaning of it...

      Trump’s ‘Operation Vote’: Glimmers of the key supporting effort, and the larger strategic context

      https://libertyunyielding.com/2021/01/04/trumps-operation-vote-glimmers-of-the-key-supporting-effort-and-the-larger-strategic-context/

      Frank

      Delete
  12. Sorry, i take a pass on the commission. First, I can't think of a single one that's ever produced anything good or worthwhile, so not a solution outright. OK, let's take peoples' idea that, sure, the Dems will never go for it but, hoo boy, that'll box them in and then Trump and the handful of patriot Republicans will have all kinds of political leverage or something. No. For one, it's a dangerous game. Don't be so sure the Demokrazis won't love the idea of this farce commission. They will totally outmaneuver Republicans on getting it stacked in their favor, they will dupe Republicans into procedural rules that will ensure the sessions get no publicity except what Dems want, and it will take up until January 20th to reach a conclusion of "nothing to see here, swear in Joe." And you can be dang sure the vote will be 12-3 against Trump which will only work against using the only real hope we have, the military.

    The problem is that we are not dealing with a political problem. It's a national security problem. a cyber warfare problem. We are under attack. Yes, Trump is exhausting all avenues short of military action but he needs all the time between January 6th and the 20th while he's still CiC to use that option. The courts are broken. The state legislatures are broken. The Congress is broken. The only branch that still seems interested in defending against the overthrow of our republic is the Executive and even that is hanging on with Trump, DIA, Special Forces, and some hard core DOJ people.

    The commission is going to split our forces and allow the Demokrazis to run out the clock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, the military absolutely is not going to leave the barracks, period. You'll get better Vegas' odds on monkeys flying out of Raffensperger's butt and admitting to guilt not only of the 2020 Steal, but divulging where they buried Jimmy Hoffa. Ain't gonna happen and Trump ain't gonna call for it.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    2. Well said, Tom. I cannot fathom people who are calling for sure losing strategies when there are possibilities to at least mount a defense that has long term potential.

      Delete
  13. A better option is for Pence to either reject the electoral votes of the corrupted states or at least require that the evidence be presented to Congress live with full public coverage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The notion that the VP--who is actually a party in interest to the election--has "plenary power" to reject electoral votes has no basis in the Constitution.

      Delete
    2. For Impeachment of the President the Constitution says "the Chief Justice shall preside" and nothing else. Did this clause assign the power to reject questions submitted by the Senators? It obviously did, since that's exactly what Roberts did.
      Pence can do whatever he wants to do presiding over the count of electoral votes, just as Roberts did whatever he wanted to do.

      Delete
    3. Nonsense. An impeachment trial is exactly that: a trial, and the CJ is the presiding JUDGE at that trial. As such he can make rulings on the relevance of questions and so forth.

      The VP presiding over the counting of votes is not a judge and the process is in no way similar to a trial, so that any analogy to a trial is nonsensical.

      I suppose you would have been totally fine with VP
      Gore rejecting FL's votes so he could become POTUS?

      Delete
    4. @ mark.

      It's been done. Thomas Jefferson in 1801, as VP, deciding electoral votes in an election where he was a candidate for president, chose electors in his own favor. As far as I can tell, no one claimed that Jefferson, intimately involved in the construction of the Constitution and with plenty of people still living, was not charged with acting contra the Constitution.

      Granted, the passage of the Constitution is not very clear but serious con law scholars insist that the VP has the power to at least open the elctoral envelopes or not (i.e., accept ir reject), thus throwing the election to the House in the contingent election process.

      Now whether that's a good idea is a separate question. Congress tried to get around this with the act in 1887 that sought to impose the current process, but how can Congress change what's in the Constitution without an amendment? They can't.

      So, should Gore have thrown out Bush's electoral votes? Well, maybe. But the result wouldn't have won the election for him. I believe the contingent election would have gone to Bush anyway based on the number of GOP delegations. At any rate, had Gore done that and succeeded you can believe that we'd have had a Constitutional amendment to fix that by now. Arguing about what if Gore had done it is the trap Republicans always fall into. "If we do this, then Democrats will do it too." Yep. Guess what? Demokrazis will do whatever they like whenever it suits them regardless of what we do or don't do. The bottom has fallen out and if Pence has the courage and Constitutional spine he should reject the electoral votes from the criminal controlled states. Let the Demokrazis theow a fit. Biden must not serve, no matter what.

      Delete
    5. That was 1800, this is now. In 1800 Jefferson seized on a technicality of form and changed votes to himself--a power that the Constitution didn't give him. In 1800 nobody objected, now bloody hell would be raised--and not just by Dems. 1877 is a much better analogy, especially because the issues were not technicalities, as in 1800. Nowhere does the Constitution suggest that the VP has the power to NOT OPEN the envelopes as you and your decidedly UNserious "scholars" suggest. The 12th says:

      "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted ..."

      Shall ... shall. No option. Nor does it state that the VP is the one who counts the votes, much less decides whether or not to count them or to reassign them.

      Delete
  14. Rumors about the Big Guy bugging out are getting such, that a sane guy like Kunstler refers to them thusly:
    "What I wonder... is, whether there is some negotiation underway, for Mr. Biden to *concede* the election, before events move forward into official inquiries.
    I wouldn’t be hugely surprised if that is the case."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Has anyone noted this yet? Mo Brooks is saying the all of the Senate and House members piling on to this objection are not actually filing the claims required to object.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1346242818948399105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1346243154832449541%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2021%2F01%2Fted-cruz-just-pull-head-fake-challenging-fraudulent-election-results%2F

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I saw it. I'm obviously not an insider, but I haven't seen any requirement that objections be filed sooner than when the votes are announced.

      Delete