[trumandogz]

I’m sorry, I am not willing to buy into the theory that Dick Cheney intentionally failed to call for objections and that not a single Republican member of the House and Senate was prohibited from objecting to the certification of the election.

And, I do not believe that Chief Justice Roberts intentionally botched the Oath of Office. If Roberts had not wanted to deliver the Oath of Office, he could have refused to do the honors.

[BP2]

> I’m sorry, I am not willing to buy into the theory ...

You don't have to "buy into" anything!

It is a FACT that NO objections were called for on Obama's Electoral votes by the U.S. Senate on Jan. 8, in accordance with REQUIREMENTS set forth in 3 USC 15 - Sec. 15:

3 USC 15 - Sec. 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received."

Further, it is a FACT that Article 2 of the United States Constitution prescribes that the President must take the oath "before he enter on the Execution of his Office," while the 20th Amendment states that the terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

You might say, "Oh, that just a technicality."

But then again, so is the whole "Natural Born Citizen" issue — merely a "technicality" in the eyes of some who don't hold it as a Constitutional requirement.

Why else did Obama do a SECOND Oath of Office on Jan. 21? "Constitutional Experts" were concerned that other foreign governments and leaders might not acknowledge Obama's legitimacy, a/k/a, a "technicality."

Child molesters and murders are let off on weaker "technicalities" than this ...