Posted on 12/30/2020 10:25:43 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
This morning, Senator Josh Hawley became the first Senator to publicly commit to objecting to Joe Biden’s slate of electors on Jan. 6, when Congress votes to certify the 2020 presidential election.
In a statement, Hawley said he cannot certify the electoral results because some states like Pennsylvania “failed to follow their own state laws.”
Later in the day, Representative-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) wrote in a tweet that the word on Capitol Hill is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may strike a deal to change the rules in how congressional members can object to Joe Biden’s slate of electors.
(Excerpt) Read more at electionwiz.com ...
“I’m curious as to why VP Gore did allow the electoral vote to be contested when he had the perfect opportunity.”
I think I can answer that for you.
“I don’t think Al Gore was working against his own interest and in “the best interest of the country” when he refused to allow the 2000 electoral vote to be contested on Jan. 6, 2001, but rather that someone told him what to do and he complied.”
I can confirm that Al Gore’s decision was made in “self interest” as that was aligned directly in parallel with “the best interest of the country”... as “they” determined it.
Gore’s efforts, if they had continued, would have resulted in an unavoidable exposure of the PROOF of frauds being practiced to allow Gore to claim he won Florida.
They were unwilling to take the risk of having the frauds, already exposed, proceed to being absolutely proven and made actionable.
“My point here is that if someone or something “behind the scenes” was telling Al Gore what to do, could they do the same to Mike Pence on Jan. 6, 2020?”
There is a difference apparent, in 2020, because, while the election outcome is again made dependent on frauds being practiced... and the frauds have again been exposed:
Donald Trump is not George Bush (a still tolerable Deep State controlled entity)... and “the Biden-like thing” (which is clearly not actually a real person) is not Al Gore...
Trump has not subscribed to the Deep State mantra, nor sworn fealty to it, nor submitted to the COERCION demanding fealty to the lie... that “they” require politicians (like Gore) to submit to.
The lie is very simple. Election fraud is real... and the two parties in the Uniparty have agreed, between them, to avoid EVER addressing it seriously. When it is raised (always by those outside the Uniparty) and proven... a few stupid people will be convicted for participation, over minor infractions, but the effort is never ALLOWED to proceed to looking for, much less addressing SYSTEMIC fraud. See 2020 Bill Barr as exhibit 1. Systemic fraud is a “myth” only because “they” REQUIRE it to be one... which is how they maintain control over the system.
Every candidate is told, before running, that we must avoid talking about election fraud, because then people might not trust the result of elections. As the integrity of the elections is necessary for legitimacy, and control of the system depends on sustaining legitimacy, legitimacy depends on refusing to acknowledge fraud when you see proofs of it.
Of course, candidates are not selected because they’re the best and brightest, and certainly not because they’ve been proven as persons of integrity ? But, the filter imposing control in selection of the most corruptible doesn’t function only in elections, but from selections made from among the elected, as recruitment into the Uniparty depends on willingness to be corrupted... and go along with that... and everything else that grows from it.
Well said.
Amen.
“Mitch must acquiesce to seal the steal deal.
Otherwise, it is concrete shoes for the turtle.”
Or if we get our hands on him it’s the gallows for him and his chicom whore.
Wow. Amazing insights. Gives me lots of food for thought. Thanks for sharing!
Want to be clear:
Changing the rules, now, on how the election is judged... is a non-starter. It would be unconstitutional.
The election must be judged under the rules existing when it was conducted.
Changing the rules now, to apply them to that prior event, would be passing an ex post facto law. A law passed now, to apply in judging a past event... NOT constitutional.
They can try to change the law that applies to future elections... but the odds of them hanging around long enough to accomplish that are rapidly diminishing.
They have no power. Its all Pence
Yes, Pence holds all the aces.
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.