STRESS TEST | PROLOGUE | JANUARY 6 | FALLOUT | IMPEACHMENT
________________________________
Prologue: Lead Up to the January 6, 20201 Joint Session of Congress to Certify Election Results
There is a simple process for raising objections [PDF]; it requires one Senator and one House member to sign on. This last happened in the Jan. 2005 session when Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) objected to the count in Ohio (>). Following a successful objection, the members to return to their respective chambers, debate for a maximum of two hours, vote and then reassemble in joint session.
In the weeks leading up to Jan. 6, numbers of Republican members joined the Trump cause, while a few spoke out against it. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) was first to say that he would object. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) joined followed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and other Senators and Senators-elect. Cruz wrote, "By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes." The key word is "allegations." The arguments seemed dominated by rhetoric rather than the clear presentation of facts one would hope to see in such a serious matter. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) provided a good analysis of the facts and the "destructive, vicious circle" of allegations in his Dec. 30 Facebook post. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) stated, "The egregious ploy to reject electors may enhance the political ambition of some, but dangerously threatens our Democratic Republic."
U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)
December 17, 2020 Press Release
CONGRESSMAN MO BROOKS LEADS 18 COLLEAGUES IN SENDING LETTER TO HOUSE & SENATE LEADERSHIP SEEKING ELECTION FRAUD HEARINGS AHEAD OF JANUARY 6TH ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE SUBMISSIONS
Signers of the letter: Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05), Congressman Andy Biggs (AZ-05), Congressman Mike Rogers (AL-03), Congressman Jim Banks (IN-03), Congressman David Rouzer (NC-07), Congressman Paul Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ-04), Congressman Ted Budd (NC-13), Congressman Lance Gooden (TX-05), Congressman Brian Babin (TX-36), Congressman Bob Gibbs (OH-07), Congressman Ralph Norman (SC-05), Congressman Gregory Steube (FL-17), Congressman Jody Hice (GA-10), Congressman Mike Kelly (PA-16), Congressman Jeff Duncan (SC-03), Congressman Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Congressman Randy Weber (TX-14), Congressman Scott DesJarlais (TN-04), Congressman Mike Garcia (CA-25).
Click HERE to view the letter.
Full text of the letter follows:
December 16, 2020
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Senate Majority Leader
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Lindsey Graham
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Roy Blunt
Chairman
Committee on Rules and Administration
United States Senate
260 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Ron Johnson
Chairman
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
United States Senate
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Jerrold L. Nadler
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren
Chairperson
Committee on House Administration
U.S. House of Representatives
1309 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Carolyn Maloney
Chairwoman
Oversight and Reform Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Leader McConnell, Chairman Blunt, Chairman Graham, Chairman Johnson, Speaker Pelosi, Chairperson Lofgren, Chairman Nadler, and Chairwoman Maloney:
Constitution Article I, Section 4 (the “Election Clause”) empowers Congress to set the times, places and manner of elections involving federal elected officials. State legislatures are similarly empowered to set the times, places and manner of elections provided they do not conflict with the laws of Congress.
There are countless incontestable examples wherein governors, election officials, and judges altered states’ election procedures in violation of the Constitution’s Election Clause, in conflict with Congressional acts setting the times, places and manner of elections, and in conflict with legislative acts similarly setting the times, places and manner of elections.
What is unknown is the exact extent to which these violations of Article I, Section 4 illegally affected and altered federal elections within various states.
Constitution Article 1, Section 5 empowers the House and Senate to be the “Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”
United States Code Title 3, Chapter 1 states the process by which electoral college electors’ votes are communicated to Congress and the procedures by which Congress accepts or rejects states’ electoral college vote submissions (3 U.S.C. 15).
The sum and substance of the above Constitutional and statutory provisions is that Congress is the final and ultimate judge, jury and arbiter of all contested Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential elections.
The House of Representatives has already received notice of, and shall be the “Judge” of, an election contest in Iowa.
Similarly, the presidential election has been the subject of dozens of lawsuits alleging voter fraud, illegal voting, and election theft which, on January 6, 2021, may or will be the subject of extensive floor debate as Congress determines whether to accept or reject various states’ electoral college vote submissions.
To date, and as would be expected because federal elected office contest duties lie with Congress, federal courts and the Supreme Court have had no trials on, no substantive evidentiary hearings on, and declined to rule on the merits of numerous voter fraud, illegal voting and election theft allegations in dozens of lawsuits.
America’s republic is dependent on the actual and perceived honesty and accuracy of the elections which are the underpinning of all republics.
Inasmuch as it is inevitable that Congress will face one or more election contests, likely to include that for President of the United States, we, the undersigned, request that your committees do their jobs on behalf of our country and immediately and without delay hold all evidentiary and other hearings necessary to fully investigate and probe the anomalies of the 2020 general election so that Congressmen and Senators will be fully informed as we face contests and questions about the legitimacy and validity of all federal elections held on November 3, 2020.
This request has particular urgency due to federal law mandating that all objections to the receipt of various state electoral college vote submissions be made on January 6, 2021.
Therefore, we ask that you immediately convene and hold hearings that:
1. probe all allegations of illegal conduct concerning the November 3, 2020 elections.
2. investigate systemic problems affecting our elections.
3. hear from election experts to explore legislative solutions that lessen the impact of fraudulent and illegal votes and restores faith that America can hold a free and fair election.
We look forward to your prompt action on these matters that are critical to America’s continued existence as a republic.
Sincerely,
December 30, 2020
https://www.facebook.com/SenatorSasse/posts/3517705981660655
WHAT HAPPENS ON JANUARY 6th
In November, 160 million Americans voted. On December 14, members of the Electoral College – spread across all 50 states and the District of Columbia – assembled to cast their votes to confirm the winning candidate. And on January 6, the Congress will gather together to formally count the Electoral College’s votes and bring this process to a close.Some members of the House and the Senate are apparently going to object to counting the votes of some states that were won by Joe Biden. Just like the rest of Senate Republicans, I have been approached by many Nebraskans demanding that I join in this project.
Having been in private conversation with two dozen of my colleagues over the past few weeks, it seems useful to explain in public why I will not be participating in a project to overturn the election – and why I have been urging my colleagues also to reject this dangerous ploy.
Every public official has a responsibility to tell the truth, and here’s what I think the truth is – about our duties on January 6th, about claims of election fraud, and about what it takes to keep a republic.
1. IS THERE A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR CONGRESS TO DISMISS ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES?
Yes. A member of the House and the Senate can object and, in order for the vote(s) in question to be dismissed, both chambers must vote to reject those votes.
But is it wise? Is there any real basis for it here?
Absolutely not. Since the Electoral College Act of 1887 was passed into law in the aftermath of the Civil War, not a single electoral vote has ever been thrown out by the Congress. (One goofy senator attempted this maneuver after George W. Bush won reelection in 2004, but her anti-democratic play was struck down by her Senate colleagues in a shaming vote of 74-1.)
2. IS THERE EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD SO WIDESPREAD THAT IT COULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
No.
For President-Elect Biden’s 306-232 Electoral College victory to be overturned, President Trump would need to flip multiple states. But not a single state is in legal doubt.
But given that I was not a Trump voter in either 2016 or 2020 (I wrote in Mike Pence in both elections), I understand that many Trump supporters will not want to take my word for it.
So, let’s look at the investigations and tireless analysis from Andy McCarthy over at National Review. McCarthy has been a strong, consistent supporter of President Trump, and he is also a highly regarded federal prosecutor. Let’s run through the main states where President Trump has claimed widespread fraud:
* In Pennsylvania, Team Trump is right that lots went wrong. Specifically, a highly partisan state supreme court rewrote election law in ways that are contrary to what the legislature had written about the deadline for mail-in ballots – this is wrong. But Biden won Pennsylvania by 81,000 votes – and there appear to have been only 10,000 votes received and counted after election day. So even if every one of these votes were for Biden and were thrown out, they would not come close to affecting the outcome. Notably, Stephanos Bibas (a Trump appointee) of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled against the president’s lawsuit to reverse Biden’s large victory, writing in devastating fashion: “calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
* In Michigan, which Biden won by 154,000 votes, the Trump team initially claimed generic fraud statewide – but with almost no particular claims, so courts roundly rejected suit after suit. The Trump team then objected to a handful of discrepancies in certain counties and precincts, some more reasonable than others. But for the sake of argument, let’s again assume that every single discrepancy was resolved in the president’s favor: It would potentially amount to a few thousand votes and not come anywhere close to changing the state’s result.
* In Arizona, a federal judge jettisoned a lawsuit explaining that “allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court,” she wrote. “They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election.” Nothing presented in court was serious, let alone providing a basis for overturning an election. (https://www.azcentral.com/.../federal-judge.../6506927002)
* In Nevada, there do appear to have been some irregularities – but the numbers appear to have been very small relative to Biden’s margin of victory. It would be useful for there to be an investigation into these irregularities, but a judge rejected the president’s suit because the president’s lawyers “did not prove under any standard of proof” that enough illegal votes were cast, or legal votes not counted, “to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election.” (https://www.8newsnow.com/.../judge-no-evidence-to.../)
* In Wisconsin, as McCarthy has written, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against President Trump, suggesting that President-Elect Biden’s recorded margin of victory (about 20,000 votes) was probably slightly smaller in fact, but even re-calculating all of the votes in question in a generously pro-Trump way would not give the president a victory in the state. (https://www.nationalreview.com/.../biden-won-wisconsin.../)
* In Georgia, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation complete audit of more than 15,000 votes found one irregularity – a situation where a woman illegally signed both her and her husband’s ballot envelopes.
At the end of the day, one of the President Trump’s strongest supporters, his own Attorney General, Bill Barr, was blunt: “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” (https://apnews.com/.../barr-no-widespread-election-fraud...)
3. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMS OF THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN?
I started with the courts for a reason. From where I sit, the single-most telling fact is that there a giant gulf between what President Trump and his allies say in public – for example, on social media, or at press conferences outside Philadelphia landscaping companies and adult bookstores – and what President Trump’s lawyers actually say in courts of law. And that’s not a surprise. Because there are no penalties for misleading the public. But there are serious penalties for misleading a judge, and the president’s lawyers know that – and thus they have repeated almost none of the claims of grand voter fraud that the campaign spokespeople are screaming at their most zealous supporters. So, here’s the heart of this whole thing: this isn’t really a legal strategy – it’s a fundraising strategy.
Since Election Day, the president and his allied organizations have raised well over half a billion (billion!) dollars from supporters who have been led to believe that they’re contributing to a ferocious legal defense. But in reality, they’re mostly just giving the president and his allies a blank check that can go to their super-PACs, their next plane trip, their next campaign or project. That’s not serious governing. It’s swampy politics – and it shows very little respect for the sincere people in my state who are writing these checks.
4. WAIT, ARE YOU CLAIMING THERE WAS NO FRAUD OF ANY KIND THIS YEAR?
No. 160 million people voted in this election, in a variety of formats, in a process marked by the extraordinary circumstance of a global pandemic. There is some voter fraud every election cycle – and the media flatly declaring from on high that “there is no fraud!” has made things worse. It has heightened public distrust, because there are, in fact, documented cases of voter fraud every election cycle. But the crucial questions are: (A) What evidence do we have of fraud? and (B) Does that evidence support the belief in fraud on a scale so significant that it could have changed the outcome? We have little evidence of fraud, and what evidence we do have does not come anywhere close to adding up to a different winner of the presidential election.
5. BUT ISN’T IT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO INVESTIGATE THESE CLAIMS MORE THOROUGHLY? DOESN’T IT HELP GUARANTEE THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS?
I take this argument seriously because actual voter fraud – and worries about voter fraud – are poison to self-government. So yes, we should investigate all specific claims, but we shouldn’t burn down the whole process along the way. Right now we are locked in a destructive, vicious circle:
Step 1: Allege widespread voter fraud.
Step 2: Fail to offer specific evidence of widespread fraud.
Step 3: Demand investigation, on grounds that there are “allegations” of voter fraud.
I can’t simply allege that the College Football Playoff Selection Committee is “on the take” because they didn’t send the Cornhuskers to the Rose Bowl, and then – after I fail to show evidence that anyone on the Selection Committee is corrupt – argue that we need to investigate because of these pervasive “allegations” of corruption.
We have good reason to think this year’s election was fair, secure, and law-abiding. That’s not to say it was flawless. But there is no evidentiary basis for distrusting our elections altogether, or for concluding that the results do not reflect the ballots that our fellow citizens actually cast.
6. DO ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS?
When we talk in private, I haven’t heard a single Congressional Republican allege that the election results were fraudulent – not one. Instead, I hear them talk about their worries about how they will “look” to President Trump’s most ardent supporters.
And I get it. I hear from a lot of Nebraskans who disagree with me. Moreover, lots of them ask legitimate questions about why they should trust the mainstream media. Here’s one I got this morning: “We live in a world where thousands and thousands of stories were written about the Republican nominee’s alleged tax fraud in 2012, but then when Harry Reid admitted – after the election – that he had simply made all of this up, there were probably three media outlets that covered it for thirty seconds. Why should I believe anything they say?” As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has watched for four years as lies made up out of whole cloth are covered as legitimate “news” stories, I understand why so many of my constituents feel this in-the-belly distrust. What so much of the media doesn’t grasp is that Trump’s attacks are powerful not because he created this anti-media sentiment, but because he figured out how to tap into it.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that the best way we can serve our constituents is to tell the truth as we see it, and explain why. And in my view, President-Elect Biden didn’t simply win the election; President Trump couldn’t persuade even his own lawyers to argue anything different than that in U.S. federal courts.
…WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The president and his allies are playing with fire. They have been asking – first the courts, then state legislatures, now the Congress – to overturn the results of a presidential election. They have unsuccessfully called on judges and are now calling on federal officeholders to invalidate millions and millions of votes. If you make big claims, you had better have the evidence. But the president doesn’t and neither do the institutional arsonist members of Congress who will object to the Electoral College vote.
Let’s be clear what is happening here: We have a bunch of ambitious politicians who think there’s a quick way to tap into the president’s populist base without doing any real, long-term damage. But they’re wrong – and this issue is bigger than anyone’s personal ambitions. Adults don’t point a loaded gun at the heart of legitimate self-government.
We have a deep cancer in American politics right now: Both Republicans and Democrats are growing more distrustful of the basic processes and procedures that we follow. Some people will respond to these arguments by saying: “The courts are just in the tank for Democrats!” And indeed the President has been tweeting that “the courts are bad” (and the Justice Department, and more). That’s an example of the legitimacy crisis so many of us have been worried about. Democrats spent four years pretending Trump didn’t win the election, and now (shocker) a good section of Republicans are going to spend the next four years pretending Biden didn’t win the election.
All the clever arguments and rhetorical gymnastics in the world won’t change the fact that this January 6th effort is designed to disenfranchise millions of Americans simply because they voted for someone in a different party. We ought to be better than that. If we normalize this, we’re going to turn American politics into a Hatfields and McCoys endless blood feud – a house hopelessly divided.
America has always been fertile soil for groupthink, conspiracy theories, and showmanship. But Americans have common sense. We know up from down, and if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. We need that common sense if we’re going to rebuild trust.
It won’t be easy, but it’s hardly beyond our reach. And it’s what self-government requires. It’s part of how, to recall Benjamin Franklin, we struggle to do right by the next generation and “keep a republic.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
January 2, 2021
Joint Statement from Senators Cruz, Johnson, Lankford, Daines, Kennedy, Blackburn, Braun, Senators-Elect Lummis, Marshall, Hagerty, Tuberville
"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."
Sunday, January 3, 2021
Romney Statement On Certification of Presidential Election Results
“The egregious ploy to reject electors may enhance the political ambition of some, but dangerously threatens our Democratic Republic. The congressional power to reject electors is reserved for the most extreme and unusual circumstances. These are far from it. More Americans participated in this election than ever before, and they made their choice. President Trump’s lawyers made their case before scores of courts; in every instance, they failed. The Justice Department found no evidence of irregularity sufficient to overturn the election. The Presidential Voter Fraud Commission disbanded without finding such evidence.
“My fellow Senator Ted Cruz and the co-signers of his statement argue that rejection of electors or an election audit directed by Congress would restore trust in the election. Nonsense. This argument ignores the widely perceived reality that Congress is an overwhelmingly partisan body; the American people wisely place greater trust in the federal courts where judges serve for life. Members of Congress who would substitute their own partisan judgement for that of the courts do not enhance public trust, they imperil it.
“Were Congress to actually reject state electors, partisans would inevitably demand the same any time their candidate had lost. Congress, not voters in the respective states, would choose our presidents.
“Adding to this ill-conceived endeavor by some in Congress is the President’s call for his supporters to come to the Capitol on the day when this matter is to be debated and decided. This has the predictable potential to lead to disruption, and worse.
“I could never have imagined seeing these things in the greatest democracy in the world. Has ambition so eclipsed principle?”
January 3, 2021
Joint Statement Concerning January 6 Vote
Reps. Kelly
Armstrong (R-ND),
Ken Buck (R-CO),
Mike Gallagher
(R-WI), Nancy Mace
(R-SC), Thomas
Massie (R-KY), Tom
McClintock (R-CA),
and Chip Roy
(R-TX) released
the following
statement
concerning
concerning the
January 6 vote to
certify electoral
votes.
“We, like most
Americans, are
outraged at the
significant abuses
in our election
system resulting
from the reckless
adoption of
mail-in ballots
and the lack of
safeguards
maintained to
guarantee that
only legitimate
votes are cast and
counted. It is
shameful that
between both
chambers of the
U.S. Congress, we
have held
precisely one
hearing on
election integrity
since Election
Day.
"The people cannot
trust a system
that refuses to
guarantee that
only legal votes
are cast to select
its leaders. The
elections held in
at least six
battleground
states raise
profound
questions, and it
is a legal,
constitutional,
and moral
imperative that
they be answered.
"But only the
states have
authority to
appoint electors,
in accordance with
state law.
Congress has only
a narrow role in
the presidential
election process.
Its job is to
count the electors
submitted by the
states, not to
determine which
electors the
states should have
sent.
"The text of the
United States
Constitution, and
the Twelfth
Amendment in
particular, is
clear. With
respect to
presidential
elections, there
is no authority
for Congress to
make value
judgments in the
abstract regarding
any state’s
election laws or
the manner in
which they have
been implemented.
Nor does Congress
have discretion to
disqualify
electors based on
its own finding
that fraud
occurred in that
state’s election.
Congress has one
job here: to count
electoral votes
that have in fact
been cast by any
state, as
designated by
those authorized
to do so under
state law.
"As of this
moment, not a
single state has
submitted multiple
conflicting slates
of electoral
votes. In other
words, every state
has sent either
(a) Biden
electors, or (b)
Trump electors. Of
the six states as
to which questions
have been raised,
five have
legislatures that
are controlled by
Republicans, and
they all have the
power to send a
new slate of
electoral votes to
Congress if they
deem such action
appropriate under
state law. Unless
that happens
between now and
January 6, 2021,
Congress will have
no authority to
influence the
outcome of the
2020 presidential
election.
"To take action
otherwise – that
is, to
unconstitutionally
insert Congress
into the center of
the presidential
election process –
would amount to
stealing power
from the people
and the states. It
would, in effect,
replace the
electoral college
with Congress, and
in so doing
strengthen the
efforts of those
on the left who
are determined to
eliminate it or
render it
irrelevant.
"From a purely
partisan
perspective,
Republican
presidential
candidates have
won the national
popular vote only
once in the last
32 years. They
have therefore
depended on the
electoral college
for nearly all
presidential
victories in the
last generation.
If we perpetuate
the notion that
Congress may
disregard
certified
electoral
votes—based solely
on its own
assessment that
one or more states
mishandled the
presidential
election—we will
be delegitimizing
the very system
that led Donald
Trump to victory
in 2016, and that
could provide the
only path to
victory in 2024.
"There is one and
only one path to
victory for
President Trump on
January 6, 2021,
and it depends on
state legislatures
certifying Trump
electors in the
states at issue,
pursuant to state
law and the U.S.
Constitution, and
based on a finding
that votes
lawfully cast in
November were
sufficient to
produce a Trump
victory. If they
believe there was
fraud—and if they
believe that such
fraud affected the
outcome of the
election—they
must, as a body,
convene
immediately and
send us that
information, along
with certified
electoral votes
cast by a Trump
slate of electors.
Absent such
action, there is
not a
constitutional
role for Congress
to change the
outcome of any
state’s vote.
"The text of the
Constitution is
clear. States
select electors.
Congress does not.
Accordingly, our
path forward is
also clear. We
must respect the
states’ authority
here. Though doing
so may frustrate
our immediate
political
objectives, we
have sworn an oath
to promote the
Constitution above
our policy goals.
We must count the
electoral votes
submitted by the
states.”
Some
Trump tweets from
Jan. 5, 2021
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
January 5, 2021
Statement from President Donald J. Trump
“The New York Times report regarding comments Vice President Pence supposedly made to me today is fake news. He never said that. The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.“The November 3rd election was corrupt in contested states, and in particular it was not in accordance with the Constitution in that they made large scale changes to election rules and regulations as dictated by local judges and politicians, not by state legislators. This means that it was illegal.
“Our Vice President has several options under the U.S. Constitution. He can decertify the results or send them back to the states for change and certification. He can also decertify the illegal and corrupt results and send them to the House of Representatives for the one vote for one state tabulation.“
Copyright © 2020, 2021 Eric M. Appleman/Democracy
in Action. All rights reserved.