Posted on 11/27/2020 9:10:44 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
President Donald Trump on Wednesday summoned Republican members of the Pennsylvania legislature to the White House after a GOP hearing in Gettysburg in which Trump phoned in to reassert his false claim that he “won Pennsylvania by a lot.”
But on Thursday, no one wanted to talk about the meeting.
The White House did not issue a public statement about the visit, and lawmakers who made the trip to Washington were silent.
President-elect Joe Biden won Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes by 80,555 votes, according to the results Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar certified Tuesday. The former vice president is ahead in the national popular vote by about six million votes. Election officials across the country have found no evidence of widespread fraud, as Trump has alleged.
Even with the Biden transition underway, the president is pressing ahead with increasingly desperate attempts to invalidate the election or raise doubt about Biden’s legitimacy as the incoming president.
(Excerpt) Read more at yorkdispatch.com ...
A resolution is a parliamentary maneuver handling a matter without going to a state's governor. That is the correct way of the legislature exercising its authority to appoint electors.
You think the Governor has to approve what the Constitution says is the purview of the LEGISLATURE, regarding electors???
Nor can you just ignore your state's constitution and the laws governing election procedures that you've previously passed.
You can change those laws but only under the process defined in the constitution that created the legislature in the first place.
In the case of PA, yes, because that's what it says in the PA constitution that created the PA legislature.
To date SCOTUS has agreed.
Sounds like a 49ers game from the early 80s with Joe Montana at the helm. We know how those usually played out.
We will see—let us agree to disagree.
The stakes are just too high—if a fraudulent election is permitted to stand the Republic—including all its laws and all its courts—are gone.
The Supreme Court fully understands this—and they will not want to be the last Supreme Court of a dead Republic.
The governor has no power or authority to select or send electors, period. The Constitution couldn’t be clearer on this. The Supreme Court would take about two seconds to overrule such idiocy.
I think you just mixed up Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Wondering if their visit to the WH involved a visit to a SCIF visit???}}
Thanks for your insight, and offering the case history of Smiley v Hom.
However, in the opening sentence of that document, it says the decision is with regard to Article I, section 4 of the US Constitution, which is specifies “the time, place and manner of holding elections for Representatives in Congress” not the Presidency.
The issue under discussion here is with regard to the election of the President, which was originally defined in the separate Article II of the Constitution, Section 1, clause 3, which has been subsequently been replaced by the 12th Amendment.
So the case you cited isn’t a perfect, apples to apples comparison, perhaps.
When they write the books on this “Battle of the Bilge” Col Mastriano has earned the coveted Gen MacAuliffe parallel.
If this resolution has authority over the electors then fine ! Great !
If it has no more authority then one of the typical resolutions that state legislature pass to show they are nice, caring, fun guys & gals then why bother.
Good question. One would have to assume, the meeting certainly involved information of some sort, that couldn't be relayed over video or teleconference. Whether these reps would have adequate clearance, or that the President would release classified info to them under his authority, is a good question. I'm sure he has info in his possession that no media outlet anywhere has available to them! So again, good question.
It would take only 100,000 votes in both PA and MI, and much less than that in GA, WI, or AZ. Would that be deemed "not widespread?"
My post: “You think the Governor has to approve what the Constitution says is the purview of the LEGISLATURE, regarding electors???”
Your response: “In the case of PA, yes, because that’s what it says in the PA constitution that created the PA legislature.
To date SCOTUS has agreed.”
I see nothing in the PA Constitution giving the Governor the power to appoint electors.
Please cite the section you believe is applicable.
Thank you.
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_VII,_Pennsylvania_Constitution
Mastriano isn’t in charge, unlike Col. “Nuts!” McAuliffe.
It is a quote from the article, so I just wonder if those are people who went to a meeting and were not impressed; otherwise, why is that part of the story, it being about silence on the issue.
But on Thursday, no one wanted to talk about the meeting.
Going to be a long list of corrupt people names see daylight if China Joe takes the win.
The PA Constitution outlines the process for creating laws.
Using this process the PA legislature, with the governor's assent, passed (and amended) the Pennsylvania Election Code which details the process for choosing electors.
So the legislature has determined how electors are selected and codified it.
If they now want to change this they can, but only using the process outlined in the PA constitution.
In essence, SCOTUS has ruled that the reference to state legislature in this instance is synonymous with the state writ large. The state gets to choose how its electors are selected.
It's almost impossible to imagine the states ratifying the US Constitution otherwise.
Meanwhile, PA has its own little set of problems: All forensic evidence, all chain of custody records in Delaware County, PA are gone.— Cari Kelemen (@KelemenCari) November 25, 2020 🚨Delaware county is completely invalidated
take away 206,423 from Biden, 118,532 from Trump
PA is then 3,251,806 Biden, 3,259,142 Trump
🚨Trump wins PA on this county's invalidation ALONE https://t.co/Ht8kS3KVVH pic.twitter.com/5zqCPW0Uiq— 2020 is so 1984 (@skjultster) November 25, 2020"
What are the chances there are all these problems happened:
1) In the same election cycle
2) For the same national office
3) All in swing states
4) All in favor of the same candidate
5) All AFTER the *other* candidate had what looked like an insurmountable lead
6) All of which mysteriously "stopped counting" and then resumed without proper oversight
7) All of which happened during the same time frame beginning in the middle of the night after polls closed
8) All of which involved SIGNIFICANT departures from both historical practice and against constitutional guarantees
Those 8 elements together (even without any commonality it vote counts, specific methods, or distribution of questionable / fraudulent votes within states, or common use of Dominion software) ALREADY put it between "clear and convincing" and "beyond a reasonable doubt".
When you add the numbers (e.g. a single after-the-polls-closed drop of 600,000 votes, of which 570,000 went for Biden and 3200 for Trump)
When you add the multiple eyewitness affidavits and the complaints from three Democrat Party US Senators (see j. and following on page 52), from as recently as the prior Calendar Year, that Dominion software is hackable
and you add in The eyewitness testimony (Exhibit 1 from Powell's Michigan Lawsuit) of a guy who helped design/implement Dominion, designed to steal elections
The network analysts pointing out that Iran and China had access to Dominion servers
this makes the evidence for Watergate look like child's play.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.