I don't like to be played. Don't say there is machine fraud and lots of people are fixing to go to jail and then start complaining about absentee ballots. The victory is at hand, if it is at hand.
Nope.
They are not hand counting or comparing signatures as promised.
They are burying the fraud in Georgia.
Clear enough to me that your advocacy for ignoring and enabling a shell game while “recounting” fraudulent ballots using the same fraudulent method as before... doesn’t make you an obvious advocate for integrity... rather than error... while appearing somewhat challenged in that department yourself.
You have the same problem, ultimately, that the Georgia election officials have, whatever it is any judge says, as is shown in Pennsylvania... because Article I, Section 4 doesn’t address only affirmative action.
Given Georgia’s administrative effort to “expose the fraud” is itself a fraud, that likely will require action from the legislature to address correction of the ERRORS in process...
The “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof”... means it is THEY and not the SoS who decide what “observe” means... and what non-compliance with the law by state officials looks like and requires of them.
In this... the legislators are witness, judge, jury and executioner... as well as legislator. They only need to comport themselves in accordance with the Constitution while not tolerating State officials doing too much, or too little in complying with the law, or othere directive of the legislature.
If they want... Georgia’s legislature can direct that “an audit” is required, and that in Georgia an “audit” consists of all those elements contained in the letter from Doug Collins requesting a thorough review... and not the deliberate half measures being addressed now.
They have already sent a letter or two to the SoS:
https://www.wtoc.com/2020/11/10/georgias-congressional-delegation-signs-letter-demanding-investigation-into-claims-voter-fraud/
The rest... is about legitimacy of purpose. Fostering fraud or failing in resisting it while not following the law... is not legitimate... whether that is the goal of the Secretary of State... in exceeding limits and rewriting law, or in the opposite, failing in executing what the law directs. The same limits apply to Nancy Pelosi... if she seeks to enable fraud in a result rather than resist it.
Note that Rep Carter is wrong... as the U.S. Constitution directly charges State Legislatures with full authority as well as responsibility in “the manner prescribed”... including the plenary power in ensuring the laws ARE complied with... and neither rewritten nor ignored by Secretaries of State.
As noted, the same section imposes limits on Nancy Pelosi, too...
Article I, Section 4 grants primary power to State Legislatures... while enacting limits on Congress. That remains true... as it empowers Congress to alter election regulations... as that power, too, remains subject to the other limits that apply to the Congress. They cannot violate other sections of the Constitution in trying to coerce Georgia, or punish them for doing their Constitutional duty.
So, Congress’s power in relation to the State are still limited by Equal Protection concerns... already at the forefront in election related issues the court has addressed recently, and seems sure to revisit this cycle. Congress’ own actions will not be above SCOTUS scrutiny.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-1-1-1-2/ALDE_00001037/
Also, as Oregon vs. Mitchell:
To accomplish the ends under this clause, Congress may adopt the statutes of the states and enforce them by its own sanctions.22 It may punish a state election officer for violating his duty under a state law governing congressional elections.23 It may, in short, use its power under this clause, combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause, to regulate the times, places, and manner of electing Members of Congress so as to fully safeguard the integrity of the process; it may not, however, under this clause, provide different qualifications for electors than those provided by the states.24