Here Come GOP Members of Pennsylvania Legislature Making Moves Concerning the Electors

Red State ^ | 11/28/2020 | Nick Arama

[SeekAndFind]

We brought you the news here and here of how State Sen. Doug Mastriano (R-York) had organized a committee hearing into election integrity and heard from multiple witnesses with some stunning testimony about alleged election fraud and irregularities. President Donald Trump even called into the hearing and thanked people from coming forward. Then after that, Twitter suspended Mastriano’s personal account.

Now, Mastriano is dropping more news. Mastriano was appearing on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast when he announced that he and other senators would introducing a resolution calling to withdraw the Secretary of State’s certification of the election and the slate of electors.

🚨BREAKING: While on Steve Bannon's War Room, @dougmastriano announces the PA legislature will draft a joint resolution to take back power from the Secretary of State in the appointment of presidential electors.

— The Election Wizard (@Wizard_Predicts) November 27, 2020

BREAKING: Pennsylvania State Senator @SenMastriano says the Legislature will seek to reclaim its power to appoint the state’s electors to the Electoral College. pic.twitter.com/zWuvAJRAxu

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) November 27, 2020

According to Penn Live, 26 Republicans did in fact formally announce they in fact were introducing such a resolution.

Citing what they described as election law compromises, irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing, the 26 lawmakers stated in a news release issued late Friday afternoon the issues raised about the election has “undermined our elector process and as a result we can not accept certification of the results in statewide races.” [….]

Concerns about the fairness and integrity of the election that the group of lawmakers raise in some of the 21 clauses in their resolution are similar to arguments raised by President Donald Trump’s legal team during a Senate Majority Policy Committee meeting on Wednesday.

“It is absolutely imperative that we take these steps if we are to ensure public trust in our electoral system. Faith in government begins with faith in the elections which select that government,” the House GOP members’ news release states. “Just as Pennsylvania led the founding of our nation, Pennsylvania should also lead the way by making sure our commonwealth continues to stand as a keystone in our nation where free and fair elections are of paramount concern, no matter the final outcome of those elections.”

Currently the process in Pennsylvania is that each of the parties picks a slate of electors that is then chosen when the Secretary of State certifies the election.

But the Constitution provides that the state legislatures can decide how electors are appointed. There’s also a federal statute that allows the legislature to decide how the electors will be appointed if they believe that they have failed to make a clear choice.

But it’s not clear how much gas this effort has, because the House Speaker and the House Majority Leader don’t appear to be involved in it, according to Penn Live.

But it looks like there’s going to be a similar hearing and look into election integrity in Arizona as well, according to Jenna Ellis, who is part of the president’s legal team.

🚨🚨🚨Arizona State Legislature to hold hearing on election integrity Monday, November 30. Mayor @RudyGiuliani and I will be present on behalf of President @realDonaldTrump.
https://t.co/b8ORVzEakP

— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) November 27, 2020

HT: Twitchy

[central_va]

State law cannot override the USC art. II. Sheeesh.; What happened to FREE REPUBLIC?

[caww]

Whitmer’s more important things to do is declare her state needs 100million $$$$ of stimulus for covid expenses.....while declaring a billion dollar debt for her state.

[caww]

People work week days.....that’s why.

[Blue Highway]

True but I’m sure there are patriots that would do this for this cause if it was organized. This is do or die.

[caww]

I’ll assume you should understand the hoops required to organize these marches beforehand. How about you set it up?

[Truthoverpower]

Yes you are correct on that

Although I would say at this point the GOP is we have known it up to this point is dead

What we have is the new movement, founded by Donald J Trump , which is a conservative pro American movement

We’ve had it with rhinos 🦏 we’ve had it with traitors - and we know who they are now.

So right now in America there’s still two political parties and we will see what happens going into the future

[tinyowl]

I took yours as a personal attack and an attack on the efforts. So yeah - just slapping back. If I was incorrect I withdraw, the pure typed word is sometimes dangerous.

To get back to the original: I found 'ah, great' to be needlessly and illogically negative. I can probably be criticized fairly for having a knee jerk reaction to that type of thing as it was a feature of my family of origin. But even if that were true, what purpose does it serve to say, sarcastically "ah great" [it's gonna fail] ... that it's bound to fail? That's not guaranteed.

And my follow on comment isn't so much a personal attack as maybe a healthy slap: Sure you wouldn't sign a contract right now which had you betting on the PA legislature doing the right thing, nor would I, but the fact that they made it this far is good news, something to be grateful for, and may indicate a spark of courage that could lead to something. So my point is, if your life isn't all that happy, maybe it's stemming from your style of thinking.

But yeah, I guess I'll hit if I feel another is hitting or dragging down the team. And if I am shown to have misapprehended the hit, then I would be in error, and would withdraw it happily.

I wish you well, am not interested in debate, personal or otherwise, unless I think there might be something to be gained or something needlessly negative removed. I might suck at that for all I know.

[Datom69]

And what are you doing besides sniping at the guys on our side like so many of the whinny little bitches here on FR?

Not my post but I liked it.

[Datom69]

Sorry wrong person.

[Peter W. Kessler]

It’s “Whiney.”

[tinyowl]

I don't know you two, probably we will never meet.

I have gone after you both in a couple comments for being what I saw as negative nellies. Normally I don't care if anyone is a negative nellie, except most of us here, you two included I'm sure, are in an odd kind of fight against something ... negative ... and in most respects our hands are tied. That is, we are not the ones who get to take the decisive action we hope others (pols, legislators, jurists) should take.

If in fact I have wrongly attacked you personally, either because I misinterpreted something you wrote as either illogically negative and hence a drag on the good guys, or because I interpreted something you said back to me as a personal attack on me, which therefore led me to impulsively think 'oh, well, there, they attacked me! Release the Kraken!' ... then if those things are in fact true - I sincerely and fully apologize. I have no way of knowing if those things are true, and we are unlikely to ever meet face to face where the nuance of the discussion would probably reveal that.

So I am in fact offering an apology, with an if, and my 'if' is not part of a weasel apology like many who say 'if I offended anyone.' I get that you were offended. I'm just not sure whether I was in what I consider to be rights, to go for it.

So if I'm wrong, which I can't tell, but if I am, I would ask that you forgive the hits, with my apology, and chalk it up to a misread on my part and perhaps I'm a little trigger happy because I care about what's going on.

I do think it's best if people err on the side of keeping their negativity to themselves IF it's merely a negative outlook and not wired into any facts. There is enough to worry about right now with just the facts. Negative attitudes in addition to those facts hurt the cause (in my opinion).

I do think it's fair to slap back with a personal attack if another has implicitly or explicitly launched the first. And if that's what I did, then I don't feel apologetic. I'm just not sure which is which.

So you know whether an apology is warranted - if it really is, and you really believe you didn't play a part, and God agrees, it's yours without reservation, and I ask you to forgive me.

[zaxtres]

I apologize to no one but thank you for yours.

[Blue Highway]

If I lived in PA I’d be marching.