Posted on 12/30/2020 10:25:43 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Well if they can make up rules about how a congresscritter can object to items they see as fraudulent and illegal, then go the full monty and make rules about the way they can vote as well. Get that control locked down tight, jah?
They CAN’T do that.
It is SET IN STONE in the constitution.
Maybe Nanzi and Cocaine Mitch can get a constitutional amendment passed in six days. (NOT)
This statement is BULLSHIRT! At least Mitch knows better.
Execute them...if true.
Treason.
“We’ve already blown past Banana Republic. I don’t even know what to call us anymore.”
Still in the era when our Democratic Republic was deeply corrupted by the Deep State requiring fraud was “unmentionable”:
Nixon Mentions the Issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5PO9Cn818
The only fly in the ointment is that President Trump refuses to quit.
ROTFL. That has as much power as the rest of rule of law. They make it up as they go along. Congress and the courts have subverted the constitution beyond recognition. "It's constitutional, because we say it is."
“The objections will most likely fail. Why not just let it play out?”
The objections are GUARANTEED to NOT fail. That’s true in the sense that as they WILL be lodged... that WILL require the process be followed. And it will be.
The rest... is a function of WHAT is objected to ? And, then, yes, of course... how the process proceeds in addressing the objection thus raised, matters.
So, for instance... what that means... depends on WHAT is being objected to ?
If the objection is “I don’t like how Arizona voted”... you likely get one response from the VOTERS engaged in the process of addressing the objection, in House and Senate.
If the objection is... “the certification of the electors from Arizona was knowingly fraudulent” because the result in the election was determined by fraud, and the fraud was KNOWINGLY enabled by the signatories ?
A difference exists... depending on WHAT is voted upon as the process is engaged ?
The goal: Ensure the vote taken... requires those voting... to not dodge the RELEVANT question.
Pence’s choices do matter. What objection is likely to be raised will depend on which slates of electors he advances as “the right one”... One might hope Pence would opt out of participation in facilitating the fraud being objected to... and not advance the fraudulently made slate. We won’t know what he does... until he does it.
But, not just Pence’s choice ?
People seem to be expecting there will be ONE objection raised, and disposed of ? Arizona is the first state with a fraudulent slate of electors ? OR is it ?
Alabama... Rep Mo Brooks and Sen. Tommy Tuberville... both saying they will object... might well object... to ALABAMA’s electors ? Why ? Because, even though they voted for Trump, the ELECTION itself was driven by fraud... and the result, thus produced, was wrongly certified... even without the error being intentional.
When we get to Arizona... HOW MANY objections might be lodged... EACH OF WHICH has to be addressed ?
How do you STRUCTURE the objections... to corner the rats into voting... in a way that has them committing a crime by furthering the fraud ?
The Republican Party is truly flirting with disaster...
Amen
“BOTH the Senate and the House have to agree to overturn the votes for a particular state, which will obviously never happen.”
Not remotely close to what has to happen.
First, it matters, first, what is objected TO... that House and Senate will vote on, in an ATTEMPT to come to an agreement on disposing of the objection raised.
There is no “overturning votes” that will be the subject of any objection.
Second, what the objection is MIGHT depend on what Pence presents as a controversy to be resolved... which slate of electors is advanced BY him... to be objected to ?
And, what process may he allow for objections being raised ?
There is still a game afoot, here...
And, that might NOT be the same game for all 50 states ? Pence might “compromise” between warring factions... and advance the fraudulent slate for Arizona and Georgia... but advance the Legislature backed slate for Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ?
Separately, beyond the issues in how Reps and Sens put themselves on hooks by how they vote... figuring out where the divisions are between House and Senate in how they will vote... is still more relevant in outcome OF the vote... all depending on what is the controversy raised for resolution.
Get ONE instance... of the House and Senate voting differently about ONE controversy... and Trump wins.
And, meanwhile, as the PROOF of the fraud continues to grow... those being asked to participate in the fraud by allowing it... face growing risks. They might well fail in proper analysis of those risks.
I don’t know how the DYNAMIC in revealing the NATURE of that risk will play out ?
I won’t be surprised to see a few more healthy young first term Congressmen or Senators suddenly dropping dead from “corona”.
Unlike the courts... more like the Grand Jury petition... there’s not a mechanism here that allows objections to be IGNORED...
Congress can say whatever they want to...
In the real world... Federal law passed to further curtail the BASIC function of the... Constitution... doesn’t matter.
As a practical matter... the bad guys winning by corrupting each other and the process... while agreeing among themselves that their corruption is a thing of beauty worth sustaining...
Doesn’t convince anyone else of their legitimacy...
If they DO as you propose... there WILL BE a civil war.
This right to object is not a rule that can be changed so easily, it’s in the Constitution. If they go around the Constitution, it is yet another violation of the Constitution.
I say this is BS.
Your remarks about following the Constitution is why I think this is all propaganda BS.
Small chance of success... certainty of death... What are we waiting for?
Someone must defend that last bastion of freedom in the world. To Oz...
Well that would be a court case...........They can not change the founding documents of our country with a “deal”.
Can you show me the part, in law, or in the Constitution, where it requires that: if some lower level official (Governors, Secretaries of State, State Attorneys General, down to lower ranking state and local elections officials) observes or commits a fraud, and then signs a certificate saying fraud he observed, or his own practice of fraud, wasn’t fraud...
Then the rest of officialdom, all the higher level elected officials, and all those in the courts, are fully obligated to ignore it, agree with him, and accept his certification of fraud as “not fraud” ?
There is no power to object to or prevent validating the products of fraud as a legitimate products ? There is no OBLIGATION, on the part of all elected officials, and judges, to refuse to accept the products of fraud... as fraudulent?
What law is there... requiring officials to prevent frauds being practiced... and also requiring them to not facilitate that conduct in others, or the official acceptance of frauds, or products of frauds ?
There is a clear choice made, is there not, between that participation enabling fraud... and that REQUIRED in preventing it ? Where is the standard defined ?
What terms in law describe that behavior on the part of those holding offices of trust... generally ?
Curious, though, that it seems you’re VERY intent on crafting that case, HERE... arguing that law trumps the basic grant of Powers written in the Constitution, while encouraging the pretense that there was no fraud, first... as a part of justifying and enabling acceptance of the RESULT of the fraud... while seeking to prevent others recognizing the fraud, and its products... by VALIDATING fraud and its products... as if doing that is EVER a legitimate function of the law ?
What does the law say, about the obligations of the officers of the court... in relation to truth ?
So, why might you be advocating in defense of fraud ?
Crossing those lines is dangerous.
I will note... there may be a chance that efforts made to enable, practice, and then validate and certify the products of frauds, including subsequent advocacy for accepting the products of frauds, after the fact... might well prove, in themselves, to be acts of sedition, and even treason in some cases... should it turn out that the “fraud” being practiced was rather less “simple” than it is made to appear, now.
What obligations exist, on the part of officers, all those elected to positions of trust, all judges, and all officers of the court... to ensure their acts are not participatory in enabling or in the conduct of criminal acts ? And what law applies to them, were they to fail in meeting their basic obligations to society ?
It is already OBVIOUS that multiple instances of the exact same thing, done at the exact same time, by the same group of people, in the exact same way... for the exact same reasons... with the exact same result... isn’t coincidence.
The astronomical odds... in any single instance... are dwarfed by the odds of the aggregate being any thing other than coordination... conspiracy. The odds of a monkey given a typewriter producing a Shakespeare play, word for word, with no typos, on his first try, are better than the odds of Biden winning this election... without that “coincidence” in a series of unfortunate events... that has to be a fraud.
That leaves the question... about the nature of the interest behind the effort made, then, ongoing now... in fostering the fraud and advocating for its acceptance...
Who provided the money... and who is taking the money ?
When you “skip over” that step in proper determination of the legitimacy of an act, and proceed to acceptance of the act and its products... because you benefit from ignoring the legitimacy while accepting the product ?
What does the law call that ?
What does the law say about that ?
On January 6th Congress needs to refuse the electors from all states using Dominion
Which truths DO you find to be self evident ?
The requirements for legitimacy in process... based on truth... is pretty fundamental.
And, the Constitution doesn’t CREATE any rights. Our rights pre-exist. Those rights we just HAVE... are granted us by God, and are not ABLE to be taken from us. IF they are “taken from us”... we didn’t EVER “lose” them... we were simply BEING WRONGLY ABUSED by those miscreants who were attempting to take them... by abusing OUR OWN power in the effort, using it against us, to deny us the practice of the rights WE DO HAVE. And, WHEN that happens... the founders SHOWED us what to do about it.
The Constitution exists, in result, as a non-exhaustive documentary acknowledgement of our rights and their origins... stated in the form of restraints applied on government, intentionally obstructing its inherent tendency to abuse power.
Our right to object... AND BE HEARD... is one of those fundamental rights that cannot be taken. If there is an effort made to deny us that right... either in preventing the objection being made... or in preventing the objection being heard and addressed through legitimate process as the Constitution and the law require... we are empowered to correct the problem.
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.