Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

12 GOP Senators Call for Electoral Commission to Conduct “Emergency 10-day Audit” Of Disputed States (Update)

12 GOP Senators Call for Electoral Commission to Conduct “Emergency 10-day Audit” Of Disputed States (Update)

“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”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bFDjq0_kTo

Twelve Republican Senators and Senators Elect, led by Ted Cruz, have released a Joint Letter calling for appointment of an Electoral Commission to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of results in disputed states, to be completed in time for the January 20 inauguration, including giving state legislature’s time to change their electoral votes if the audit reveals fraud.

The letter recognizes it has little chance of success, but at least it doesn’t pretend — as some have — that Vice President Pence, as President of the Senate, can reject electoral votes.

Here is the full letter, signed onto by U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

“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.”

REACTIONS — The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. but mostly The Ugly

UPDATE

Looks like Pence isn’t going to take any action himself (because he can’t, as mentioned before), but he supports the Congress exercising its authority.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 2, 2021 at 1:26 pm

REMINDER: Democrats Have Objected To Electoral Certification The Last Three Times A Republican Won

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/reminder-democrats-objected-electoral-certification-last-three-times-republican-won/

love the “its white supremacy” arguments mixed in with this. its as if biden does not exist to them and its all about harris. hmm……

    n.n in reply to dmacleo. | January 2, 2021 at 2:47 pm

    Rabid diversity (i.e. color judgments), not limited to racism, and liberal doses of projection. Demos are aborted in darkness.

    n.n in reply to dmacleo. | January 2, 2021 at 2:53 pm

    The claim is more White-Americans voted for Biden, while more Black-Americans, Hispanic-Americans voted for Trump. I wonder how Orange-Americans voted. Interesting demographic change that accompanies progress. Diversity (i.e. color judgment), not limited to racism, is a clear and progressive condition.

Message for Amy Klobuchar.

The election process in GA is what is embarrassing. We have a worthless Secretary of State and Governor who have allowed election workers and officials to stuff the ballot box then looked the other way.

    Close The Fed in reply to Tsquared. | January 2, 2021 at 4:00 pm

    She doesn’t care about “embarassment.” She cares about a chance of losing.

    If she really knew what embarassment was, she’d lose weight.

      Close The Fed in reply to Close The Fed. | January 2, 2021 at 4:02 pm

      And she’d wear some damn high heels, instead of those fugly flats.

        It gives. Rudy the chance to keep working on flipping the State Legislatures.
        Once one flips , Georgia the others may flip fast before a massive propanda machine can be worked up.
        The need to get the Legislatures some security

          RNJD in reply to dmi60ex. | January 3, 2021 at 3:50 am

          Rudy? Rudy?? You think the guy who stood in front of a judge in PA and stated that the President’s case had nothing to do with election fraud is going to convince anyone to do anything?? Lordy, he can’t even book the correct ‘Four Seasons’ for a press conference.

          randian in reply to dmi60ex. | January 3, 2021 at 4:07 am

          The question is whether Rudy actually believes “the President’s case has nothing to do with election fraud”, or whether he said that to mollify the judge, because he believed the judge would summarily reject anything that smells of an election fraud claim.

          RNJD in reply to dmi60ex. | January 3, 2021 at 5:16 am

          Okay, randian, so let me get this straight…Rudy complains that the problem with the lawsuits is that judges refused to hear any evidence of voter fraud because he told the judge the President’s claim had nothing to do with voter fraud because he was concerned that the judge would summarily reject any evidence of voter fraud. Interesting strategy….if you have no proof of fraud.

          mark311 in reply to dmi60ex. | January 3, 2021 at 12:51 pm

          @RNJD

          Wouldn’t let me thumbs up your post, so here it is ?

          The disconnect between the Trump legal team press conferences and what they actually present to the various judges makes me think they are full of s**t.

          Barry in reply to dmi60ex. | January 3, 2021 at 2:11 pm

          mark311 & RNJD work at the same desk, for minimum wage.

          mark311 in reply to dmi60ex. | January 3, 2021 at 4:42 pm

          @Barry

          Riiiight, is that really the best you can do? If you can only throw baseless insults and not even argue your point then my only conclusion is that you are troll.

2smartforlibs | January 2, 2021 at 1:43 pm

My gutless 2 are not on the list. They however know I will be working hard if we ever have an election to get both removed.

We need to be attacking from every direction at all times. Let’s make their heads spin as we keep the 74 (84+?) million Trump voters who were cheated engaged in a new endless battle. While that is going on…

Convention of States! What ever happened to that? Levin is the only guy left actually offering a winnable option. Let’s get that back in the conversation and pin it to the tails of those GOPe squishes.

Let’s make 2022 a bloodbath for not only the Dems but for the GOPe.

Trump is already lining up candidates to run against RINOs. Yesterday, it was for SD Gov Kristi Noem to run against Republican squish Thune for senator.

If it takes death by a thousand cuts, let’s do it!

Eric Swalwell: “Name & shame these enemies of democracy.” Last I checked, going horizontal with Chinese spies doesn’t exactly earn you Friend of Democracy of the Month, does it now?

    Romeg in reply to frysauce. | January 3, 2021 at 9:29 am

    Eric Swillwell says this without the slightest hint of irony after having spent that last four years sparing zero effort in the destruction of the faith of the electorate in elections In 2016 NO state official entertained the possibility of irregularities in their electoral processes. This time ’round there is actual, credible evidence of irregularities and documented evidence of such in places PA, GA, MI, WI, AZ and NV which, coincidentally, just happen to be pinch points; critical states upon which the entire election hinges yet, any suggestion of taking a closer look makes you eligible for the Benedict Arnold Medal of Treachery.

Electoral Commission makes sense. Still a long shot at changing the results. At least some public officials care about the legitimacy of our election and the future of the republic.

    Close The Fed in reply to Ben Kent. | January 2, 2021 at 3:16 pm

    The timing doesn’t really work. Ten (10) days doesn’t give enough time.

    Hayes v. Tilden: So in January of 1877, a 15-member electoral commission made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats would determine which candidate won the disputed states.

    In the end, after a series of votes along strict party lines, the commission awarded Hayes all three of the contested states in early March 1877, making him the winner by a single electoral vote.

    Ten days? This is really a bunch of senators trying to keep their gop presidential aspirations alive, and a lot less about trying to rectify the election stealing we’ve witnessed.

    https://www.history.com/news/reconstruction-1876-election-rutherford-hayes

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-1876-voter-fraud-suppression-partisanship/

      If this flies – the problem is this hamstrings Trump for 10-days during the commission investigation. He really can’t pull a rabbit out of the hat [Insurrection Act, Martial Law, or whatever] during the 10-day period. Unchartered water awaits. Somehow I feel Trump has that rabbit.

        Milhouse in reply to walls. | January 2, 2021 at 11:57 pm

        There aren’t any rabbits. He can use the Insurrection Act to put down Antifa/BLM riots, but not to take or keep power. And there is no such thing in the USA as “martial law” unless the civilian courts are literally unable to open for business, which is not the case. Neither the president nor anyone else has the power to “declare martial law” in any other circumstance.

          Close The Fed in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2021 at 7:10 am

          Okay, we’ll ignore every ultra vires thing Lincoln ever did.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2021 at 9:28 am

          We don’t have to ignore anything. Ultra vires remains ultra vires, and unlike Lincoln, Trump cannot get away with it. The military is very aware of its duty to refuse illegal orders, and individual officers are aware of their exposure to personal liability in Section 1983 suits, as well as possible criminal charges if they obey them.

    caseoftheblues in reply to Ben Kent. | January 2, 2021 at 7:20 pm

    Why would the identification of massive fraud that changed the results and therefore overturning fraudulent results…why would THAT be a longshot. To do ANYTHING other than overturn the results should be the longshot

    RNJD in reply to Ben Kent. | January 3, 2021 at 3:45 am

    No they don’t. This is just kabuki theatre; politicians desperately trolling for Trump voters for the 2024 presidential nomination.

You can always tell that Democrat objections are baseless platitudes when they could be used the other way if the shoe were on the other foot. They would be crying about “threat to democracy” if the same thing happened to their side and they were the ones fighting it.

Pence may, and is obligated to, reject obviously fraudulent results. Quit invoking the Nuremburg Defense!

Color me cynical, but the fact that they waited TWO MONTHS to FINALLY say they’re going to do it says that they don’t actually think they’ll succeed, but they’re just trying to placate the rubes with a rousing round of Failure Theatre.

    mrtomsr in reply to Olinser. | January 2, 2021 at 6:24 pm

    Thank goodness we have had some real patriots doing the heavy lifting for the last two months, a couple of hard hitting lawyers, an inventor/business success, plenty of computer experts, statisticians, data analysts, Yep a lot of heavy lifting already done. If the politicians can get their egos on board with that evidence already collected, can successfully get around the media’s “iron curtain of silence”, and truly put the Country first, we may get somewhere beyond BS kabuki theater.

    https://redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2021/01/02/how-to-break-through-the-media-fog-on-the-massive-election-fraud-n302875

      mark311 in reply to mrtomsr. | January 3, 2021 at 2:41 am

      Do you have a link to these statisticians and computer experts reports/statements? The only so called computer expert I’ve come across turned out to be a dud

        Close The Fed in reply to mark311. | January 3, 2021 at 7:13 am

        Matt Braynard, got the Master Death Index and the National Change of Address database.

        https://youtu.be/TZ3EgGeFzNQ

          Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 10:13 am

          Matt Braynard got his rear end handed to him by GA Rep. Bee Nguyen, when he testified on Dec 10. She proved that hundreds of names on his list of alleged fraudulent votes were completely bogus.

          It didn’t go any better for him in court.

          mark311 in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 1:20 pm

          @close the fed

          Given Milhouses comment, do you have any other sources? Preferably credible ones.

          I followed up on the source and Milhouse is correct, he got thoroughly demolished in court.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 4:23 pm

          I read the article linked my Milhouse. It does not support that Braynard is incorrect. One of the two pushbacks was that 8 of the first 10 people in a list he provided were long-time residents of Georgia and/or owned property there, this information being verified via interrogation of public records. Braynard’s argument is that these people are registered to vote in another state and/or filed a change of address notification with the post office to another state. The two positions are not mutually incompatible. I own property in more than one state, but am registered to vote in the state of my residence. Simply owning property in a state does not allow you to vote in that state. Also, if a person moved out of Georgia, they are no longer allowed to vote in Georgia. This is the crux of one of the allegations. Publicly available records interrogated by the GA Sate Rep may be out of date, incomplete, or irrelevant. Nothing in the linked article disputes this.

          However, Braynard has the burden of proof.

          mark311 in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 5:06 pm

          @ Brave Sir Robbin

          I’ve done some more digging on this particular report.

          It was supposed to be an analysis of voting patterns and a check against the voting register this included. A survey of those who voted to corroborate the votes. His analysis was was based on a survey return rate of 0.4percent, had no methodology for assessing errors or inaccuracies with his data, had duplicate names in his data set, and he lied as well he claimed that there were disguised voting addresses ie the votes came from somewhere no one lived. Turned out that was a load of crap.

          So I guess my question remains does anyone have a reliable source supporting the case for fraud because I’ve got dead ends so far.

          Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 7:44 pm

          BSR, now you’re just making things up. Rep Nguyen personally found literally hundreds of names on Braynard’s list that were incorrect.

          People listed as living in another state, when the person in the other state has a different date of birth. In one case it was a father and son, so even their years of birth were different. Even where the dates of birth were the same, a simple phone call showed that they were different people, but Braynard never bothered.

          Then there were his list of people he alleged were registered at fake addresses that were really P. O. Boxes. Nguyen recognized two of the addresses as real apartment buildings, got a full list of residents, hundreds of names, and found that every single one of them appeared on Braynard’s list. All because he made the moronic assumption that nobody lives at the same address as a Fedex store! Seriously, that was his only evidence! Can you believe the incompetence?

          Owning property in a state, and especially claiming the homestead exemption for that property, creates a strong presumption that you regard that address as your legal residence. To rebut that presumption you need strong evidence, not some meaningless post office form that has no legal status and only means that you’re probably not currently staying at your legal home.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 8:57 pm

          Milhouse – I am not making things up. How dare you! Do not accuse people of malice. I simply read the article at the link you provided. By the article, the counter claims against Braynard were not persuasive, at least in one of the counter claims. The other I need to think through a bit more. I did not watch the hearing.

          Perhaps a link with better and more detailed information would help.

          But please, refrain for insulting people simply because they have a different opinion.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 9:44 pm

          “Owning property in a state, and especially claiming the homestead exemption for that property, creates a strong presumption that you regard that address as your legal residence.”

          Not in Georgia, at least. You only have to apply for the homestead exemption once. Not every year. The exemption automatically carries over every year. The person with the exemption must cancel it, or government authorities (county tax commissioners office) must become aware of a cause to cancel it, and act upon it.

          There should be no presumption that a homestead exemption in Georgia, which could have been applied for many years ago, has anything to do with current legal residence. The owner of said property may still own it but live in a different state and the exemption is improperly carried forward, for example. Or an original person with the exemption may have died, and now adult children reside in the home. There are other scenarios. In this narrow case, I find the counter argument you just made unpersuasive, therefore, as well.

          To state again, I own property in more than one state. There is no presumption that property ownership implies residence. In Georgia, homestead exemptions are applied for once, and carry over forever more. Most people forget about them and are not even trying to game the system. So a registered homestead exemption in Georgia is also rather meaningless in terms of establishing current residence.

          But again, the burden of proof is on the accuser, Braynard, but the fact a person in Georgia has a homestead exemption in not solid, or even fair, proof of current residence at all. It just means the person may have once owned a certain property.

          The converse is also true, of course. For example, if I rent a home in Georgia and use it as my primary residence, but have a homestead exemption for a property I still own in Florida I now lease to renters, but have forgotten to cancel the homestead exemption, I am a legal resident of Georgia and have the right to vote there.

          So, I may not be persuaded by Braynard, but I certainly was not persuaded by the article you gave as a link to refute him.

          I like you Milhouse. You very rarely give up. I like people willing to die in their foxhole. But please do not impute dishonorable intentions on my part. I do not do so to you, and would appreciate respectful reciprocity. Peace and love!

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 10:35 pm

          “Then there were his list of people he alleged were registered at fake addresses that were really P. O. Boxes.”

          I cannot speak for every state, to include Georgia, but in the state I live in, a P.O. Box is not a valid address for voter registration or proof of residency. Votes cast by persons who list a P.O. Box as their address are supposed to be invalid and not counted. Indeed, they are not allowed to register to vote using a P.O. Box as an address, and if they change their address to a P.O. Box, their registration is supposed to be invalidated. So, if they are “really P.O. Boxes,” they are indeed, not valid, or may we say, “fake” addresses.

          I think the dichotomy here, and I am just guessing, and think you may have poorly stated your case, may be that a person may be listed with a P.O. Box in a directory as a mailing address, but has a valid in-state physical address as a residence for voter registration purposes. Perhaps Braynard pulls list of addresses from one source which shows a P. O. Box for a person who, also, has correctly registered with a real and valid physical address in the state. Just because someone has a mailing address as a P. O. Box does not mean they do not have a valid physical address and correctly registered to vote with that address.

          My father-in-law uses a P.O. Box but lives a few blocks from a post office. So, having a P.O. Box and a physical address on your voter registration are not necessarily in conflict. Such a conflict may be more likely, but again, not certain, if the physical address for voter registration is a different zip code or state than the P. O. Box.

          However, if a person only has a P.O. Box as an address and no valid physical address listed for voter registration, it is NOT a valid address in my state for either registration or voting purposes, and I would bet the same applies to Georgia. And if this is what Braynard is saying, he is likely correct, and the votes are not valid as a matter of law, even if the person listing the P.O. Box actually does physically live in the state.

          So, again, I am unpersuaded by you, from what you have presented, that Braynard is incorrect. I do not know enough about Braynard’s claims, or his data, to make an assessment of validity, one way, or another, but you are not floating my boat here. Your claim is Braynard is full of crap. You must make a convincing case, just as he needs to make one himself regarding his claims.

          Just trying to help you sharpen your arguments.

          mark311 in reply to Close The Fed. | January 4, 2021 at 8:39 am

          @Brave Sir Robbin

          https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/12/a-pro-trump-voting-expert-was-questioned-about-his-data-it-did-not-go-well-for-him/

          This article goes into some depth about the errors too.

          As youve said correctly the onus is on the Braynard report to prove its point. I would suggest that it has the following flaws:

          1) The author isnt qualified
          2) The survey had a very significant lack of responses and follow up to the point where it couldnt draw conclusions AT ALL
          3) Basic errors of fact such as duplicated names, stating addresses were fake when there was no evidence of such. In total circa 10% of the numbers used were erroneous

          Given the above im not sure you can call it anything other than a junk report. It doesnt prove the point it sets out to prove and lack credibility.

          MarkSmith in reply to Close The Fed. | January 4, 2021 at 11:49 am

          Mother Jones? Yes that is a fact based /s

          Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | January 4, 2021 at 7:12 pm

          BSR, I accused you of making things up because you said you’d read the article and yet you claimed “it does not support that Braynard is incorrect”. That does not compute.

          Having property, paying taxes, and claiming the homestead exemption doesn’t prove that is the person’s residence, but it creates a strong presumption, which must be refuted by solid evidence, which Braynard made no attempt at all to obtain. A change of address form is absolutely not sufficient, it’s not even close.

          You seem to have completely misunderstood the issue with post office boxes. I explained it carefully and clearly, so I don’t understand how you came away from it with such a confused reaction. Braynard listed thousands of people whose registered voting address, he claims, is not a residential building; he claims that all these addresses are “really” just post office boxes, which of course can’t be used to register to vote.

          But Nguyen proved that he’s full of shit. She personally recognized two of the addresses, and she knew they were indeed apartment buildings. So she obtained a full list of residents for those buildings, a total of more than 100 people, and found that every single name on her list appeared on Braynard’s list as someone whose registered address is alleged to be nothing but a P.O. Box.

          What caused Braynard to make such an error? Both of those buildings house Fedex stores. That’s probably very convenient for the residents upstairs, if they ever have to send or receive a package. But Braynard is such a moron that it never occurred to him that people, dozens or hundreds of people, live at the same address as a Fedex store. So he ASS-U-MEd that their voter registrations were fraudulent, that they merely had boxes at Fedex and registered to vote from that address.

        mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 4, 2021 at 4:27 am

        @ Brave Sir Robbin

        Milhouses 2nd link is very detailed, its got an excellent take down of all the ‘experts’ used upto that date (as far as im aware).

      RNJD in reply to mrtomsr. | January 3, 2021 at 4:05 am

      Is one of those “hard hitting” lawyers the guy going around Georgia telling Republicans not to vote in the Senate election? The same one tweeting that Pence should face execution by firing squad for treason? That guy??

        Close The Fed in reply to RNJD. | January 3, 2021 at 7:15 am

        Lin Wood is hardhitting. No doubt about it. Richard Jewell, Nick Sandmann, et cetera.

        He seems to be in the Nick Fuentes camp: if the gop takes us for granted, then let them go to hell and we’ll find another way.

        While I prefer to tell the gop to go to hell, I can’t stomach the long term consequences. Just plan to work to get them defeated, starting the day after this American election saga concludes.

          Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 10:14 am

          He’s not “hard hittin”, he’s a nut.

          Close The Fed in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 10:46 am

          Sure, Richard jewell was never cleared of the 1996 bombing, and Nick Sandmann never got any settlements. Sure….

          mark311 in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 1:24 pm

          Lin wood specialises in medical negligence and defamation claims so yeah when he is in his field sure he might be good. Step outside of that and he has shown to be less than great considering the court drubbings re Trumps election. And yes Milhouse is right , spewing out conspiracy theories does no one’s credibility any good.

          Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 7:47 pm

          Jewell’s exoneration had nothing to do with Wood. Wood just helped him after he was exonerated, to get some nice settlements from those who’d jumped the gun and published his name when they thought he was guilty. At least we can assume they were nice settlements; we don’t really know.

          We also don’t know the size of the settlements he got for Sandmann. We can hope they were nice, but we have no way of knowing. For all we know they were nuisance money.

          mark311 in reply to Close The Fed. | January 4, 2021 at 4:28 am

          @Milhouse

          Good points

Why are Democrats so opposed to any, all or multiple audits, forensic analyses or hand counts and signature validations, if they are so assured that Biden won cleanly and fairly?

Anything that would dispel the distrust millions feel right now and justify Biden’s “win” should help “heal the divide” as they say.

Why?? Unless…..

    Milhouse in reply to Dimsdale. | January 3, 2021 at 12:54 am

    The same reason the Republicans would be, if they were ahead. When you’re ahead you don’t want anything to disrupt that. You want the process over ASAP. But when you’re behind you want to drag it out and explore every possibility, just in case something changes in your favor. As the story goes, “Anything could happen in a year; I could die, the horse could die, the king could die, and who knows, maybe the horse will talk!”

    mark311 in reply to Dimsdale. | January 3, 2021 at 2:46 am

    Because the standard of evidence has been dire, why look into claims of fraud when it’s been riddled with sham legal arguments, conspiracy theories with no evidence, witnesses who don’t understand the electoral process and expert reports that well aren’t expert.

    Im actually all for a proper investigation but as others have said 10 days isn’t a lot of time to detail all the various attempts at evidence and create a balanced coherent report with lessons learnt.

We all acknowledge the fraud. FIVE STATES stopped counting under suspicious circumstances. Then the vote dumps occurred.
This HAD to be a COORDINATED effort.

What I want to know – WHO PLANNED THIS?
– Any 3-letter agencies involved?
– What bureaucrats?
– What elected officials?
– What foreign governments?

We need the answers to these questions. Does anybody know the answers?

    Close The Fed in reply to walls. | January 2, 2021 at 3:23 pm

    Amazing, the D.O.J. has a voting rights section, and yet not one person has been frogmarched to jail for this set of fiascos.

    I mean, seriously, Barr, did you think all 300 million of us were asleep?

    And don’t get me started on the states. Seriously, law enforcement as the three… what were they called? Three Stooges Law Enforcement Agencies.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Close The Fed. | January 2, 2021 at 3:56 pm

      At least the three stooges were funny, there is nothing funny about these stooges. That could change if we could see them being held accountable. I am sure that their reaction to consequences would be very funny.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Close The Fed. | January 2, 2021 at 4:07 pm

      The voting rights section seems to exist for one purpose. That purpose is to a sure that people who refuse to get a photo ID, refused to walk 15 steps off the bus to register to vote at a registrar of voters, or otherwise too lazy to do much of anything but collect tax money I live on other people, get to vote. When it comes to actual voting rights, for people who should have them in the first place, that department does nothing.

      mark311 in reply to Close The Fed. | January 3, 2021 at 1:25 pm

      Because when you look at the evidence presented it falls apart under examination. No one will go to jail if you can’t prove it.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to walls. | January 2, 2021 at 3:59 pm

    “FIVE STATES stopped counting under suspicious circumstances”

    RICO ? !!!

    mark311 in reply to walls. | January 3, 2021 at 2:47 am

    Stop reading websites and start reading the judgements the disparity with the Trump legal teams public presentation of the evidence is enlightening.

    RNJD in reply to walls. | January 3, 2021 at 4:30 am

    Here’s your answer, Walls:

    A Trump supporter dies, goes to heaven, and meets God. He asks, “God, please tell me who was behind the 2020 election conspiracy and how many votes Trump really got?”

    God replies: “My son, there was no widespread fraud. Biden won the electoral college fair and square, 306 to 232.”

    The Trump supporter turns to the person standing behind him and whispers in awe: “Man, this goes higher up than I thought.”

      Barry in reply to RNJD. | January 3, 2021 at 2:20 pm

      Oh look, mark311 & RNJD working together again. Minimum wage sock puppets owned by the marxist party.

      There are multiple people using those sock puppets….

Why should voters believe that a 10-day election investigation will do anything more useful than any other congressional investigation?

I despise the congressional tendency to look for CYA before making a decision. STAND FOR SOMETHING!!!

Close The Fed | January 2, 2021 at 3:19 pm

The dems are transparently against anything that doesn’t help them win.

They would drag their own mothers over hot coal pits for 10 miles, if it would help them win.

Whatever they say, WHATEVER THEY SAY, I assume the opposite is true. BECAUSE. IT. IS.

Tis a shame Sen Toomie who days after the election said there was fraud has bailed out of any discussion of it.
Any halt for a hearing hopefully will get some of the evidence of fraud out in the open, meaning to those who only hear the Democrat’s Propaganda ministry side of the argument.

    Close The Fed in reply to Skip. | January 2, 2021 at 3:24 pm

    Isn’t Toomey out? He won’t be voting will he?

    The mountains of evidence will be permanently logged into the Congressional record… unless the bipartisan coup conspiracy is really that corrupt. Making as big as stink as possible on all fronts makes it clear that we “deplorables” have never been more angry and determined. We are NOT going away.

    Let’s make sure that “winning” this election will have very serious consequences for the “victors”. Just quietly going away tells people who read this chapter of history that we were full of crap. We’ve been cheated by the biggest conspiracy ever and we need to act like it.

    We need to be more persistent than they are and drop the loser attitudes. We are living through a fascist coup. We MUST win and better be willing to fight like we mean it.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Pasadena Phil. | January 2, 2021 at 7:49 pm

      And it is funded by our enemies.

      Spot on Phil.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Pasadena Phil. | January 2, 2021 at 7:57 pm

      First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

      “…..defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries;

      convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause

      and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

      Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation.

      That the scene of blood may be speedily closed…..”

      mark311 in reply to Pasadena Phil. | January 3, 2021 at 2:53 am

      If what you say is true, perhaps the may forward would be a series of freedom of information requests and a deep dive into both the claims and counter claims. Create a coherent report detailing the fraud. Then make the case for reform or/criminal investigation into specific individuals.

I’ve already opined that the Guarantee Clause gives the VP as President of the Senate on this coming January 6th plenary power to decide whether to receive or reject the electoral votes ….which, because 7 states, this cycle, submitted alternate slates the VP has been put on notice that there is a conflict that needs to be resolved (as if he hadn’t already been made aware of this being the running mate of the President.

I see this effort and that of Congressman Gohmert as having the same intent …to increase public focus on the fact that the proceedings on the 6th are ANYTHING BUT a ceremonial rubber stamp.

Article IV – Section 4 mandate that the Federal Government ensure a republican form of government in each state. That comes via free and fair elections. January 6th is the date that the Federal Government is supposed to confirm that this either occurred ….or needs further action to rectify issues that were not properly dealt with by the States ….

THAT’S how the federal government executes its duties under Article IV – Section 4 …

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to PugHenry. | January 2, 2021 at 7:47 pm

    True.

    Spot on.

    Milhouse in reply to PugHenry. | January 3, 2021 at 12:58 am

    The Republican Guarantee clause is irrelevant. It’s about how the states write their constitutions. The only way to violate the clause is for a state to change its constitution so as to no longer be a republic.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2021 at 6:02 am

      “It’s about how the states write their constitutions. The only way to violate the clause is for a state to change its constitution so as to no longer be a republic.”

      Generally speaking, that is a good point.

      What is the meaning of “constitution” in your statement? Is it the splotches of ink on paper that count, or has the meaning those ink stains carry any relevance?

      Would a member state of the USSR because it calls itself a “republic” satisfy the requirement? What about a state that amends its constitution to make the monarch of the United Kingdom head of state and vest all powers, unseparated powers, in the new head of state, yet persisting to call itself “republic” satisfy the provision?

      So what does “change its constitution” really mean? Does it require a textual change or does a (persistent) change in interpretation of the meaning of the text suffice, as long as it is genuinely thought to be lawful, as in a true “interpretation” of the constitution?

      Isn’t the problem at hand this:

      When obvious violations – like the collusion of bad-faith executive and judiciary in some of those states conspiring to change the constitutional framework and wilfully ignore the law as enacted by the legislature – occur and the people caught in the act refuse to even admit to what they are doing in front of our eyes, no rules but “what I can get away with” apply any longer?

      If the courts can interpret the law to mean the opposite of what it was understood to mean, what, pray tell, prevents the executive to interpret the court order to mean the opposite of what it was meant to say? When one party openly threatens to change the constitution by appointing enough partisan judges to have the court say that black is white because the party wills it, does the law have any longer any meaning at all in this political fight?

      The United States of America should not exist. After all, we must adhere to laws, however obviously perverted their execution, right? The colonists didn’t even sue the King successfully. They certainly did not prove their allegations against the King in any court of law. Isn’t it curious how their statements in the Declaration of Independence differed from what they alleged in court?
      Is there any doubt that the King would have dismissed their frivolous lawsuit? And the only proper reaction of his subjects would have been to slink home. As Americans now should do, too. Fiat “standing” pereat mundus!

        mark311 in reply to felixrigidus. | January 3, 2021 at 8:17 am

        I think the specific point that Milhouse is getting at is the clause ensures a republican government. Whilst that’s not defined with specificity it does mean for example that certain characteristics are required for example an election, no monarchy, no dictators etc. The details haven’t ever been tested as far as I’m aware but in principle I’d agree with Milhouse that it does seem irrelevant.

          PugHenry in reply to mark311. | January 3, 2021 at 8:41 am

          The clause ” maintain a republican form of government” has, to date, only been interpreted in academic situations ….It is open ended until such time as a court weighs in on it and then it will have a precedent …and even then, a new court in subsequent years might find otherwise….The point is that , on this January 6th, the President of the Senate can place his interpretation on the phrase …that he has plenary powers to decide which electors are properly certified, and then “count the votes” he so chooses ….

          Remember ….the executive branch is co-equal to the SCOTUS …It does NOT have to get the approval of a court prior to taking action ….THAT’S why the founders created an executive branch …to actually ACT to enforce the law ….That how Brown vs the Board of Education was enforced …by the Federalizing of various state National Guards to act as body guards for the students …

          I’ve not seen one interpretation of the Guarantee Clause that is definitive …they all rely on the best guess (opinion) of the person weighing in ….So, to me, that means my interpretation is as good as anyones …

          If VP Pence follows it ….the worse that happens is that the shoe is on the other foot ….he can still then allow the procedures of ECA’87 to then be initiated by the Congress (at his discretion) …which then allows the legislative branch to weigh in on the process …so then we will have BOTH of the branches ….the Executive and the Legislative branches involved in deciding whether or not the state legislatures properly carried out their constitutional duties as they relate to conducting free and fair elections.

          The Federal government was not meant by the founders to be a rubber stamp to this process …if it is aware of deficiencies …IT MUST WEIGH IN to correct them

        Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | January 3, 2021 at 10:21 am

        The point is that it refers only to how the states structure their governments. It has absolutely no relevance to the federal government.

        And a republican form of government means, more or less, an elected legislature, an elected executive, and an independent judiciary. No monarchy, no direct democracy. How elections are conducted is not necessarily a part of that analysis, though this was the subject of the Maine revolt, which the supreme court said was not for the judiciary to decide.

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2021 at 11:38 am

          When a Court denies the legislature to set reasonable received-by deadlines for absentee ballots (on the day of the election) and replaces them with their own whimsical deadlines (“half a week after the election seems great, that will help our party, won’t it?”) as did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court we are in territory where a court just might say “republic” means “the legislative, executive, and judicial powers are vested in the Supreme Court who shall appoint its members” –

          or in other words, we agree that there is some line that if crossed renders whatever a “court” does absolutely void of any binding force. We probably don’t agree where that line is, and I would say we are quite a bit closer to it than you appear to, Milhouse.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2021 at 7:51 pm

          Nothing that has happened in Pennsylvania endangers its status as a republic. Its form of government remains the same. And that’s all the republican guarantee refers to. It has no relevance to the presidential election, which is about the structure of the union.

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | January 4, 2021 at 5:26 am

          Milhouse, you say “(n)othing that has happened in Pennsylvania endangers its status as a republic” which you said means “more or less, an elected legislature (…)”

          The blatant disregard for the laws enacted by the elected legislature and the disdain with which the executive and judiciary have seen fit to overrule the legislature’s laws indeed does threaten the republican form of government. If this kind of behavior is something that routinely happens and is done with the conviction of “we can do it and the legislature can do nothing about it” you may still have an “elected” (although the open disregard for the process of the election as prescribed by the state constitution and the laws enacted by the legislature might call that into question) body which however has ceased to be the “legislature” as these functions have been unconstitutionally absorbed by the executive and the judiciary.
          There is a similarity to the soviet “parliaments” that have been used to give ceremonial weight to the Политбюро’s lawmaking.

          Note that I am not saying that we are at that point. I’m saying that we are too far down that road given the disdain the democrat operatives show for the legislature and the eagerness with which media and “elites” seem to embrace the gutting of the first of the three branches.

          MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | January 4, 2021 at 12:46 pm

          Nothing that has happened in Pennsylvania endangers its status as a republic. Milhouse

          What about in Michigan where the they had the state police prevent the republican delegates from entering the chambers to certify their electorates.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 4, 2021 at 7:23 pm

          What about in Michigan where the they had the state police prevent the republican delegates from entering the chambers to certify their electorates.

          What “republican delegates”? Those were not delegates to anything, they were not electors, and had no business in the capitol at that time. The building was closed to the public, and they were just members of the public.

          In several other states, where the state capitol happened to be open that day, similar groups did get in to the state capitols, not in any official capacity but just as members of the public. They were free to walk in as tourists and hold whatever meeting they liked, so long as they didn’t cause a disruption or get in anyone’s way. But they were not electors; they were only failed candidates for elector.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to PugHenry. | January 3, 2021 at 10:44 am

    Your argument basically makes the sitting Vice President the sole elector who will decide who the president is. This is a very bad idea.

    The proper course is for the legislatures of the states to convene, vote to invalidate the current slate of electors from their state, and, as the constitution states, “appoint” its preferred electors by plenary action, and submit these for the tally.

    Yep, lots of screaming, yelling, and law suites. But we simply cannot have Vice Presidents, on their sole accord, deciding who the president is.

      But ultimate the vice president has to decide which certificates are valid and which aren’t. As Prof J himself wrote, if 20 of us LI commenters were to sign a “certificate” asserting that we are PA’s properly appointed electors, and that we met in Harrisburg on Dec 14 and voted for Trump, and send it to the secretary of the senate for Pence to open and count, he would surely have the right and the duty to throw it in the garbage. Right? How else could it be? And if he has the power to decide that our “certificate” is fake, then how can he not have the power to decide that the one with Tom Wolfe’s signature on it is also fake? It seems to me that the only constraint on him is that he has to actually believe it really is invalid, and not just say so because it suits him.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | January 4, 2021 at 1:56 pm

        I guess there may be an interesting procedural question about how how the votes are delivered to the VP, and what is the form of a valid certification. I simply do not know. But assume delivery in good form, Pence’s role would be largely ceremonial. Then again, I see your point.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | January 4, 2021 at 4:13 pm

        OK, I did some research and for brevity, which I am not good at, it seems the VP does more or less just read the votes. It is up to members of the House and Senate to object to any particular vote. Then they adjourn for two hours to yell at each other about it. Then they vote to challenge the votes, or not. If the challenge is upheld by this vote, I’m not really sure what happens then, but it’s not Pence’s decision to count them, or not. That’s my take, so he is still largely ceremonial.

          If the challenge is upheld by both houses then it goes to the house, voting by states, which would mean Trump wins. But that’s not going to happen.

          But this is all if they follow the Electoral Count Act. There’s a serious case to be made that the act is invalid and the decision on whether a certificate is genuine belongs to the VP.

Claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election by the Clintonistas was laughable & sad.

The Trumpster fire evidence-less claims of massive voter fraud are just as laughable and sad.

    Close The Fed in reply to BAB. | January 2, 2021 at 3:58 pm

    Babs, need a diversion from the boredom of wealth? Awwww….

    Go sow your self-flattering crap elsewhere.

      Close the fed loves the cult of personality kool aid.

      Sun will still come up the day after Trump leaves office.

      Meaningless Kabuki theater.

        Close The Fed in reply to BAB. | January 2, 2021 at 6:59 pm

        Baby gurl, I know little ones like you don’t comprehend the big words used at legislative committee hearings, so I understand. Where’s your paccy?

        DaveGinOly in reply to BAB. | January 3, 2021 at 12:11 pm

        If you think this is about Trump, you are either not paying attention or simply don’t understand why Trump supporters are Trump supporters. Trump supporters love America and believe in “America first.” Trump just happens to be the person on the national scene who embodies those values. Someone else will come along. But right now, Trump is pretty much all we have, so he has our support. It may look like a “cult” to someone on the outside, but it’s not about Trump, the man, it’s about what he represents.

          mark311 in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 3, 2021 at 6:18 pm

          This is where I struggle. I do see your point about what you think Trump represents … But the man himself has demonstrated time and time again that he has no principles. The way he behaves is just appalling.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 3, 2021 at 7:58 pm

          Trump may have no principles, but he has governed as if he has not only principles, but the right ones. He’s been faking it, but so what? As I was taught a long time ago, it’s more important to act like a nice person than to be one. If you can’t be a nice person, fake it. Act as if you were one. And if you do that well enough then the difference is irrelevant.

          mark311 in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 4, 2021 at 4:35 am

          @ Milhouse

          I appreciate your point but the behaviours we are talking are directly against the principles of democracy, they stand against values that make democracy work. Democracies are fragile and in part sustained by leaders who adhere to the spirit of the thing.

          For example Trump saying that there is going to be fraud in advance of the election. He said that for one reason only to undermine confidence in the election. You cant say that he somehow knew there would be because there is no evidence. His own election reform commission disbanded because there was so little evidence of election fraud to date. The evidence of the last election as ive said time and time again has been poor. Ive yet to see a good article that has a coherent case for fraud. If you could provide one id be over the moon it would finally give me something to get my teeth into.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 4, 2021 at 2:09 pm

          “For example Trump saying that there is going to be fraud in advance of the election. He said that for one reason only to undermine confidence in the election. You cant say that he somehow knew there would be because there is no evidence.”

          Trump said these things because the Democrat party was taking steps to allow fraud, such as accepting late and no date ballots, massive expansion of no-excuse absentee ballots, mass mailing of unrequested mail-in ballots, creation of ballot drop boxes, acceptance of mail-in ballots without signatures, witnesses, security envelopes, etc., allowing registration past established deadlines, blocking purging and verification of voter rolls…. I could go on.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 4, 2021 at 7:40 pm

          Mark, Trump predicted in advance that there would be massive fraud for the same reason all of us predicted it. It was completely obvious that it was going to happen, and that it was going to happen on an unprecedented scale.

          Trump’s commission failed not because there’s no fraud(!!!!) but because the states refused to provide it with the information it needed to show that fraud. It had no subpoena power, so there was no point in continuing without access to the evidence. What’s needed now is a commission with subpoena power, a large budget, all the time it needs to dig into individual cases, and a DOJ liaison with the power and the will to bring prosecutions. Then we’ll see evidence all right.

          If you fish with a six-inch net you will never catch five-inch fish, no matter how many there are.

      About every 2 days someone writes on here that they’re ditching their FB or Twitter accounts and moving to Parler because “conservative voices are being silenced”. Yet, nearly as often I see comments like yours saying that BAB or Milhouse or someone else should be silenced because they don’t agree with the commentator’s personal opinion. See the irony?? We’re all on this site because we value the service the Professor is providing and hopefully want to engage in respectful dialogue. I’m a traditional conservative and think what the President and his enablers have been doing since the Electoral College confirmed Biden’s win is disgraceful. Everyone should be permitted to share their views without venom or ridicule.

        Close The Fed in reply to RNJD. | January 3, 2021 at 7:21 am

        Big Tech purges comments. Here, we respond as we wish.

        If you don’t like the climate, there are other sites. Personally, I find Ace of Spades comfy, but the comment section is like trying to drink from a firehose.

        Close The Fed in reply to RNJD. | January 3, 2021 at 7:42 am

        And actually, I closed twit a few years ago, when muslims started harassing me at my office. I posted under my actual name.

        I’m on Gab; hardened against deplatforming and the programming works far better. They just started TV, too. Tv.Gab.com

        FB, yeah off of that… Why let him track me everywhere. Who the hell is he?

        mark311 in reply to RNJD. | January 3, 2021 at 8:21 am

        @2RNJD

        “Everyone should be permitted to share their views without venom or ridicule”

        Totally agree, freedom of speech is a central pillar of democracy. And stifling it with venomous (and often baseless) replies helps no one.

    mark311 in reply to BAB. | January 3, 2021 at 2:56 am

    Actually the false story factories set up by the Russians were real. Measuring the effect is hard but given the echo chamber effect on platforms like facebook it probably had a real effect. How much of an effect is hard to say.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | January 3, 2021 at 2:25 pm

      “Actually the false story factories set up by the Russians were real. Measuring the effect is hard but given the echo chamber effect on platforms like facebook it probably had a real effect. How much of an effect is hard to say.”

      Actually, the false story factories set up be the Russians were ALLEGATIONS that were denied by the accused parties.

      Perhaps they existed and still exist. Its plausible in that it is an activity most countries of any sophistication likely and logically engage in. But they are actually allegations – not provable fact.

        They are allegations in the sense it won’t go to court. But that’s disingenuous. Various intelligence agencies have linked the activities to the Russian state.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency

        I don’t think there is much doubt that these kinds of activities were carried out and in particular by the Russians. Other states may be playing that game too but not to the same extent as far as public knowledge is concerned.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | January 4, 2021 at 2:43 pm

          The is actually no public evidence IRA interfered in US elections. The Special Prosecutor referred indictments knowing they would not be challenged. These indictments may have been politically motivated. Indictments, by their nature are allegations, not proof. We are not supposed to do verdict first, trial latter. The DoJ has not actually proffered evidence to these claims, because such evidence would betray intelligence agency sources and methods, if such evidence does in fact exist.

          As to what the intelligence community actually knows, that’s classified and they will not disclose their sources and methods, which they routinely withhold from other people with very high security clearances and special accesses. There is something called Information Warfare, or information operations. The US also practices it, and is good at it.

          Always take what you get from an intelligence source with a grain of salt. They have a very poor track record. It’s not necessarily because they are stupid, corrupt, or incompetent, though that plays a role (see Brennan). It’s just that everyone is lying to and misdirecting everyone else as a matter of tradecraft, and that spills into the culture of how they do business with each other and their oversight. When you are sneaking up behind someone to slit their throat, you want their attention fixated on something else.

          Most people on the planet have an interest in the outcome of US elections, and if they have the ability, will try and influence it. Pointing at Russia as some sort of monster in this regard is disingenuous, so is saying that Russia had any sort of telling effect on our elections.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | January 4, 2021 at 7:43 pm

          In any case, nothing alleged in that sense is a crime. It’s protected by the first amendment, just like FB/Twitter/MSM’s conspiracy to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop story.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 12:35 am

          To Milhouse’s point – and yes, that, too.

    Barry in reply to BAB. | January 3, 2021 at 2:23 pm

    BAB, short for babels

Close The Fed | January 2, 2021 at 3:55 pm

Every day that goes by, illustrates more fully our country’s governing bodies and laws are sclerotic. Accretions of Law-itis form as scales on a sunken ship.

A dynamic citizenry, topped by a dead, stiff head.

Sickens me.

This may sound juvenile, but my response to Swalwell would be:

Those who bang bang with Fang Fang should not talk about shame shame.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to kelly_3406. | January 2, 2021 at 7:43 pm

    You forgot the chop chop for them both.

    “Soylent Green- it’s the Communist Chinese dead!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Where is Rand Paul?

Kabuki!

It’s all kabuki and not very good kabuki at that.

The Republic is lost.

    Let’s wait and see how determined they are to win and whether they produce any results (tie up Senate business for months as more and more evidence gets logged into the books (and into the brains of those who haven’t even heard of it before) e.g. Results. We want results.

    If they are going into this already resigned to losing quickly, we should torch them. The end of Ted Cruz’ dreams of being POTUS. He has yet to accomplish anything as a senator. This would be a major win for him. Let’s see what happens. You never know.

      Close The Fed in reply to Pasadena Phil. | January 2, 2021 at 5:39 pm

      Phil, the Senators are asking for a 10-day audit. In the modern age, that should be possible, but it’s a hail mary for sure.

      I very much hope to be proven wrong, but I think they’re resigned to losing quickly, like in 1 day or 11 days, tops. I hope I’m wrong. Sincerely, strongly, strikingly….hope I’m wrong.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Pasadena Phil. | January 2, 2021 at 7:40 pm

      I remember Cruz…..

      at the border…..

      welcoming illegal aliens……

      with Teddy Bears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course Romney has come out against the idea of a 10-day audit. I am sure many other GOPe will oppose as well. The greatest service to the nation that Trump has provided is clarity. We can now truly see that many Republican office holders are wedded to the status quo, many care only about their careers, and several are at best indifferent to the Constitution.

    Olinser in reply to kelly_3406. | January 2, 2021 at 8:27 pm

    And the very fact that they are so resistant to what is only a BASIC LEVEL audit, tells you they know goddamn well that it was fixed and they don’t care.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 2, 2021 at 7:36 pm

RUT HO.

More Electioneering:

Dirty Facebook Suspends GOP Ad Campaign Days Before January Georgia Runoff Election

GP

Jul 3, 2002 — Howard Zinn: While some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

It is the right of these legislators under the Constitution, and it’s not like Democrats have not set the precedent over and over. More double standards.

If it is up to Pence to open the certificates, then it would seem reasonable to me that he would have to decide what was a certificate and which was not. That would not be discarding electors, but selecting electors from those who are not electors. Didn’t Jefferson do this very thing? And shouldn’t the 12th amendment that he relied on for his selections prevail over the later, mere, legislation?

    Milhouse in reply to ray. | January 3, 2021 at 1:00 am

    No, Jefferson didn’t do “that very thing”. He did the opposite. He opened the certificates even though he had doubts about their validity.

    PugHenry in reply to ray. | January 3, 2021 at 8:59 am

    Ray,

    That is my point ….The State legislatures conduct the elections of the electors ….the Federal Govt is supposed to oversee the results ….The Executive Branch Counts the votes which is a pretense for deciding on which ones it believes were legally certified ….The President of the Senate is meant to be like a ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the state legislatures to keep them honest ….else we get the braizenous hubris and dismissiveness we are currently witnessing in the seven states as they show no fear of submitting crooked certificates because some people think the President of the Senates acceptance of them is merely a ceremonial rubber stamp …THAT failure to understand what the Guarantee Clause means in this instance is why we are at this point …..the states think that the Feds have no powers relative to them in this effort ….except maybe the SCOTUS ….THET ARE IN ERROR ….Pence, ion January 6th has the chance to show them

      Milhouse in reply to PugHenry. | January 3, 2021 at 10:24 am

      The State legislatures conduct the elections of the electors

      No, they don’t.

      ….the Federal Govt is supposed to oversee the results

      No, it isn’t.

This is pure theater on the part of Cruz, to save the GOP while still throwing Trump under the bus. A “10 day audit” without strict conditions is a fraudulent audit. Georgia’s recent “audit” basically consisted of recounting the fraudulent votes and saying, in effect, “the fraudulent count we announced matched the number of fraudulent votes we recounted”.

Close The Fed | January 3, 2021 at 7:23 am

If the senators really wanted to help, they would have begun this after SCOTUS rejected petitions.

buckeyeminuteman | January 3, 2021 at 7:52 am

No, we have been waiting 50 days and nobody has done the right thing. I do not trust government investigating the government. Ensure Trump wins on Jan 6th or face the bloody consequences. They don’t want to face the hundreds of thousands of outright angry patriots showing up as we speak.

SCOTUS says that no part of the Constitution is without meaning, and that every part of the Constitution must be understood with regard to every other part (it must be regarded in a manner such that no part contradicts any other part). With that understanding, here goes:

The Constitution is quite clear, a state’s electors must be selected “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” The electors from several states in this election were not selected according to the manner authorized by their respective legislatures, they were selected by methods directed by state executive officials and mandated by judges in contravention of the manner directed by the states’ legislatures. All such electors were improperly chosen and therefor don’t qualify as electors according to the Constitution; they and their votes should be, must be, rejected.

The Constitution requires the VP to count the votes of all the electors, but in order to be an elector, those persons casting votes as electors must have been selected in the manner prescribed by their respective states. If they have not been so selected, then they are not electors (according to the Constitution) and if their votes are counted, such counting would violate the instructions of the Constitution, when taken in their totality. Vice President Pence is bound by the Constitution to ignore the votes of persons who are, under the law, not electors.

No fraud is needed – the electors were not properly seated, they should not be accepted as legitimate. I don’t care if the vote counts were accurate or not. The law of the land was not followed in their selection.

    PugHenry in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 3, 2021 at 10:44 am

    DaveG ..

    I would also add, as you note, that every part of the constitution was drawn up with the other parts in mind ….The constitution is a series of ‘checks and balances ‘

    So my question to those who disagree with our take on this is …why did the founders call for the President of the Senate to receive and count the votes ….If the SOLE authority over each states electors was to remain entirely with that states legislature ….If, as you imply, there was no role for the Federal Government in serving as a ‘check’ on said legislatures….then why go through the process ….just let the states file their electors with the National Archives and be done with it ??

    Answer …obviously the founders meant for the Executive to assign its imprimatur to the process ….and, by doing so, it confirmed that it had examined the process of the states and found it to be legitimate and constitutional ….

    On January 6th, the President of the Senate should serve as the ‘Sword of Damocles’ that the state legislatures fear might not give them his/her imprimatur ….THAT’S the check on the state’s legislatures that was meant by the founders

    Doesn’t make sense within the context of the Guarantee Clause ….The founders designed an executive branch to have ‘some’ of the functions of a monarch, such as ruling by fiat, but that its fiat could also be subject to the checks of the other two branches “AFTER” it has acted …NOT before ….IF the Executive truly believes that it is in their rights to do so ….Which is why Eisenhower and Kennedy federalized the National Guards in the affected states to enforce compliance with the law…

    (This, by the way, is how the ‘military’ can be deployed as called for in the Insurrection Act ….It’s the federalizing of various state national guards in the event it is needed to enforce the law …)

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 3, 2021 at 10:58 am

    Say Kamasutra Harris is the VP and set to tally the votes. Do you want her to be the one with sole power to determine which votes elector votes are tallied, and which are not?

    These proposals mystify me, as they place election of president solely in the hands of the sitting vice president, who may himself be a candidate voted for by an elector. It is best to avoid setting precedents you are not willing to live with for eternity just to gain an immediate victory.

    Everything depends upon the state legislatures which “appoint” the electors. The legislatures must present these issues to a court since they have standing. It is the legislatures which must take action when their authority and will is usurped.

    It you want to do something, pressure the right people to do the right thing. Pence has no leeway here, and I do not want to give him any, either.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | January 3, 2021 at 11:47 am

      That’s like asking me, as a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, if I think black people should have guns.

      Should any portion of the Constitution be ignored or go unenforced because sometimes the results are not to our liking?

    mark311 in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 4, 2021 at 4:50 am

    That would be a great argument to change the electoral laws imposed contemporaneously. Doing it after the election not so much.

    If a party had challenged the electoral laws when they were made then that would work but waiting until after the election when the remedy was to disenfranchise voters on the other side it falls down.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 12:47 am

      If the executive or judicial branches usurp the power of the legislature or otherwise void its intent, or if private parties commit fraud against the sovereign intent of the people as expressed via the will and intent of the legislature, then the legislature has every right to intervene after the fact to correct this wrong. And if the legislature, as the representatives of the people, cannot or will not reassert its sovereign rule, then the people themselves have every right to act using their God given and inalienable rights.

      Calling out an infraction of the rules, and amending the wrong done is not changing the rules. And the rules are that the state legislatures appoint the electors. That’s the only rule in the book.

Brave Sir Robin ….Explain to us, then, what you perceive as the ‘check’ on a state legislature that tries to ‘fix’ an election ….and why you might think that the founders would not have supposed this a possibility ??

Please don’t say the courts ….because he now have ample evidence that the courts, including the SCOTUS, refuse to weigh in and even do something as mundane as review the evidence …they’ve ALL refused on procedural grounds ….do you really want to try to defend the premise that the founders meant there to be no recourse ???

Again, we now have a REAL TIME case study to apply our theories to …..and a branch of government that was designed by the founders to ACT!!! ….Why wait until we can forensically examine it in some law school lab years from now when he have the power to do so NOW !!

Your Harris analogy doesn’t hold water if the states properly conduct their elections …in that case …..she will only receive one set of certified votes ….

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to PugHenry. | January 3, 2021 at 2:43 pm

    As stated, the state legislature can assemble, vote to invalidate the electors then appointed not in accordance with their intent, and then vote to appoint new electors, to their liking. The votes of these electors are certified by the legislature, and sent to Washington, DC, for opening and tallying by the VP.

    In that case, VP Pence would be opening and counting the correct and valid votes, and not making a decision himself on which to count or not count, in an arbitrary fashion, that gives the VP, in effect, sole power to count or disregard votes as desired, and declare a President and Vice President.

    As far as I can discern, the VP’s role is, more or less, ceremonial. The dispute as to the what electors a state sends is a dispute quite rightly resolved by the sate itself, not some external person or entity.

      It sounds like you are unaware that the Governors of these states refused to call the legislature into session so that they could do just what you suggest …

      Anyways ….you have assisted me in vetting my point ….I’ve seen nothing on this or the other two sites I joined that entertain matters of a legal interest , other than opinions, that lead me to conclude that my point as to the VP’s plenary powers, on January 6th, is , indeed entirely plausible ….

      If he does what I suggest ….and there are rumors that he will ….then He will have been fully within his powers (and duties) to have done so ….

      At that point, the ECA’87 rules can kick in ….again, IF the VP condescends to give them consideration ….He doesn’t have to ….

      However, I think that, given that it is VP Pence, and that he is a creature of the institution …and quite collegial,to say the least, I’m sure that he will allow and initiate the objections ….But in that case, it will be the Democrats trying to overturn the President of the Senates decision which will have given President Trump the majority of the electoral votes ….

      Try to prove there was no fraud …that should be REAL interesting ….

      Thanks again for your assistance.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to PugHenry. | January 4, 2021 at 3:28 pm

        The legislature of the state of Georgia may convene a special session without the concurrence of the Governor. So can Pennsylvania. Only the governor can do so in Michigan and Minnesota. This does not mean the people and their representatives cannot influence their governor to call a special session.

        The matter of selection of electors is a matter reserved for each state’s legislatures under the US Constitution. This is where the matter rests. That’s just the way it is.

        I am with you in that I think there is vast evidence this election was stolen. But ultimately, it’s the people of each respective state, via their legislatures, to appoint electors. That’s the only way it gets done, legally.

        So, if the state legislature cannot or will not step up, there is not much that can be done, legally.

        This makes sense. The will of the people is represented by their representatives in their state’s legislature. The state’s legislature appoints the electors.

        The accusation, which I support, is that the will of the people, and their representatives in the various states, has been violated and usurped by executive branch officials, all except the governor whom are typically unelected, and judges, also typically unelected.

        It is the role of the people, via their representatives, or their God given rights and liberties, to regain their sovereign control.

        No outsider of a sovereign state has the right to tell another state, and its people who are the sovereign, what electors they may or may not chose. How would you like it if California told you who your state’s electors will be, and how they are to vote?

    mark311 in reply to PugHenry. | January 3, 2021 at 5:11 pm

    People keep saying the court cases haven’t dealt with the evidence. That’s simply not the case there are a number of cases where evidence has been submitted and it’s been eviscerated.

      alaskabob in reply to mark311. | January 3, 2021 at 9:40 pm

      Yes… all evidence was declared “hearsay”. Including sworn statements, sworn affidavits and other data…. you know.. all the things used in a trial as .. as .. evidence. Let’s face it… the only party with standing is the Democrat party just as the Communist parties of USSR and China have the only standing.

        mark311 in reply to alaskabob. | January 4, 2021 at 5:32 am

        Not entirely the case, many of the witness statements illustrated an ignorance of the electoral processes being witnessed and this undermined their credibility.

        Additionally plenty of so called experts have been called and the various reports produced have turned out to have many errors, a poor understanding and generally not really showing anything of substance

        The standing issue is one of many issues that plague the Trumps legal team – they have fallen over on so many points both in terms of legal argument and evidence that there has been a debate in some quarters over whether to sanction some of the lawyers in question. I doubt that will happen now but still its testament to how badly the Trump legal team has handled things.

      Martin_Knight in reply to mark311. | January 4, 2021 at 1:04 am

      No. In almost every case, the judge simply took the officials’ word for it and dismissed the witness claims without delving any further.

      Swearing out a false affidavit is a crime. Yet no judge has called for the prosecution of any of the supposed false affiants because they really really don’t want discovery.

So in the end, 12% of the US Senate has principals. Mitt Romney must be crying…

Principles.

This whole mess reminds me of the Federalist/Hamilton. I have a feeling Trump has enough voters to cause a mess for the Uni-party even if Harris kills Trump in a duel. Things did not go well for Arron did? Not much difference in the hate toward Hamilton and the hate toward Trump. Funny thing is that the party of hate back then was the Democrat Republican Party (party of slavery and laws that lead to the civil war). Name change but the a-holes stay the same.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Republican-Party

Democratic-Republican Party, originally (1792-98) Republican Party, first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825. It was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party.

Martin_Knight | January 4, 2021 at 1:00 am

We have technology available that can directly examine the paper ballots in their hundreds of thousands in every single one of the disputed locales and identify the real versus the fake.
https://youtu.be/UgeqGmvQXKs
https://youtu.be/cYVzbwL0eUA

This is something the President, his lawyers (Rudy was at the hearing in Georgia with Pulitzer) and every Republican in Congress knows is possible.

All the President needs to do is to assert his authority, appoint and empower a Special Counsel for the exact same ten days Ted Cruz is proposing and secure the ballots as a law enforcement matter for forensic examination.

This is doable.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend