Read the other Breitbart article by Kobach on Breitbart too:
Don’t mess with Texas.
‘Bout time
But will it matter?
(Cough, cough)
Hoping Alabama, North and South Dakota, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, Utah, and other states that solidly went for Trump join in on this action as well.
Why couldn’t Guiliani have done his November 5th?
John Cornyn is not happy about this.
As should every other state whose citiens have been disenfranchised by the fraud allowed to stand in these insurrectionist states and the citizens thereof who allow their actions.
We fought a Revolution and kicked a king’s ass for less than what is being done against us.
Why has this taken so long and why is Texas the only state with representatives with enough guts to do it?
Well, here we go.. We’re about to find out why there is such a shortage of ammo...
One interesting aspect of this case is that it lays out a PERFECTLY GOOD REASON for Texas not to accept the results of the election (assuming that it’s handed to Biden).
Things could get a bit ‘interesting’ if that winds up being the case.
I see Ted Cruz’s finger prints all over it.
Happy to see this; I advocated for precisely this, first on this thread - great news!:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3912222/posts
“At what point do the Republican Secretaries of State and Attorneys General in the states that POTUS won, file federal law suits presenting the cumulative evidence of fraud across the various contested states as violations of the 14th Amendment, and dilution and disenfranchisement of their citizens? Why not now and why not give it a try?
It’d seem to me that: (1) this would be one way to fast track the situation to SCOTUS (2) present all the evidence gathered by Giuliani, Powell and others (3) that the issue of standing will be moot (4) given certifications of the vote in the contested states, that the matter will be ripe, and (5) create a federal case that can be subjected to further investigation.”
Its about time Texas brought down the hammer on some of its 49 colonies.
Nice!!
Texas refused to allow those voting machines that the other states allowed. Texas could reasonably argue that if its officials knew the machines were unreliable, officials of the other states should have known so also and disallowed the machines. The unreliability of the machines should be easy to prove.
You watchin' this?
Reading the article (and not the petition), there are indeed interesting Constitutional issues:
To what extent, if any, can the executive and/or judicial branches of government change the process for determining Electors, given that the Constitution expressly gives this power to the legislature of the states?
Nevada (where the Democrats control the legislature) demonstrates that it was possible, this past year, for the legislature to modify the process. So, why didn’t the executive appeal to the legislature, and/or why didn’t the courts order the legislature to make changes if such were compelled by the special circumstances of this year or by overriding Constitutional safeguards? The obvious reason is that the executive and/or the courts disregarded or actually wanted to usurp the power of the legislature.
With regard to relief, declaratory relief serves a purpose, but justice demands that the Supreme Court order a check of the signatures, at least on a probability sample basis, to determine if the interference had an impact on the outcome of the election. We already know that thousands of fraudulent ballots were cast by reason of the provisional ballots of in person, Election Day voters, where somebody fraudulently voted their ballot. We also know that no penalties have attached to those who committed these frauds, such as the almost non-existent safeguards against fraud after an election has been conducted. The question is how many fraudulent ballots were cast. To avert a Constitutional crisis, the Supreme Court should appoint a sufficient number of special masters from among persons in positions of trust in the federal government to verify the signatures of a meaningful sample of mail ballots, in one day. (I’d say 10 for Detroit, Fulton Co., and Phila., and 5 for Pittsburgh, and 5 each for a couple other southeastern Penn. counties.) Opposition to the obvious remedy would only be predicated by fear that the check would reveal sufficient fraud so as to question the outcome of the election. Election officials who are confident that they verified the signatures on mail ballots should welcome a check of the signatures in order to affirm the outcome of this year’s election.