“11 Senate Republicans say they will object to Electoral College results Wednesday” The Hill


"Eleven Senate Republicans on Saturday announced that they will object to the Electoral College results Wednesday, when Congress convenes in a joint session to formally count the vote. 

GOP Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Ron Johnson (Wis.), James Lankford (Okla.), Steve Daines (Mont.), John Kennedy (La.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Mike Braun (Ind.) and Sens.-elect Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Bill Hagerty (Tenn.) and Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) said in a joint statement that they will object to the election results until there is a 10-day audit. 

"Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states," they said. "Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.

"Accordingly, we intend to vote on Jan. 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not 'regularly given' and 'lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed," they added. 

The group's announcement means that at least a dozen GOP senators will object on Wednesday."  The Hill


Well, well.  Lookee here Sayrah!  pl


This entry was posted in government, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to “11 Senate Republicans say they will object to Electoral College results Wednesday” The Hill

  1. Deap says:

    Yes! This matter goes well beyond Trump or just this election. This is saving the Republic. Thank you to those who stand up to this proven election fraud.

  2. Chuck Light says:

    I could be wrong, but from my reading of the Constitution, there would have to be 40 more Senators, and 218 members of the House of Representatives in agreement with these 11 in order for this to be anything but a fool’s errand.
    Have I misunderstood the Constitution?

  3. TV says:

    Where are the swamp RINOs – Cocaine Mitch, Thune, Lindsey Sue, etc.? They had no more use for Trump than Pelosi did.
    Wouldn’t be a bit surprised if they all voted for Joe Demented.

  4. Barbara Ann says:

    Meanwhile, @SecPompeo’s regular half-hourly Twitter posts which started on New Year’s day are currently focusing on peace negotiations with “North Korea” and “denuclearization”. They describe how “American hostages” have been brought home and how “defectors” have been welcomed. The NK series starts with this one.
    Lin Wood – whose Twitter feed over the last few days needs to be seen to be believed – previously tweeted “When Sec. Pompeo speaks, listen carefully”. It may or may not be relevant that the QAnon community are currently in a state of rapture.
    Maybe it’s my imagination, but this feels to me like a whole lotta messaging. I think Trump is threatening a Samson option of nuclear conflict (declassification) unless the GOP gets in line on 6th.

  5. jerseycityjoan says:

    In their statement the Senators say this:
    “A fair and credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20-would dramatically improve Americans’ faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President.”
    But by waiting so long to speak up, the proposed audit could not be completed until weeks or months after January 20. What is going to happen in the meantime? What will the auditors find that the president’s lawyers didn’t know about and didn’t have an opportunity to present in their arguments in the dozens of suits they filed in the last two months?
    The Senators point out that “Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.’ That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).” I doubt that this audit will change many minds.
    So what would happen when it was over?
    We are entering unchartered and dangerous waters here. Presidential lawyer Lin Woods just said yesterday that “If Pence is arrested, @SecPompeo will save the election. Pence will be in jail awaiting trial for treason. He will face execution by firing squad. He is a coward & will sing like a bird & confess ALL,’ he tweeted on Friday.”
    What is going on?

  6. Fred says:

    The ‘Dirty Dozen’ or perhaps the 12 Apostles. I’m sure the Fake News industry will let us know.
    For what it is worth he’s getting a lot of normies to read the material about how the election was rigged.

  7. Alexandria says:

    Chuck Light,
    No quarrel with your Constitutional analysis. But, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents elective representatives from making the case that their constituents sent them to Washington to make, however foolish an errand that might be, and however much their errands will substantially undermine the Senate Majority Leader’s effort to keep the Senate under R control.
    Jersey J,
    Although the President is notoriously negligent and ill-informed in his choice of lawyers, and ill-advised thereafter, Lin Woods is not a Presidential lawyer: A bridge too far for, even, this President. These waters may be uncharted, but not dangerous. You are merely looking at the fools going about doing their “errands”. On January 20, Joe Biden will regrettably become President. The only saving grace being that he is convincing more Americans that he might have saved us all from something worse.

  8. Chuck Light says:

    jerseycityjoan: As far as I can tell, we are all an audience to a whole lot of crazy.

  9. Laura Wilson says:

    In case you wonder what is going on? From 1/2/21 LA Times: “Other Republican senators are expected to join Hawley, wary of ceding the spotlight to him as they, too, try to emerge as leaders in a post-Trump era.” – AP

  10. blue peacock says:

    How does this work? Can a single senator derail the certification of the electoral college or does it require a majority?
    Is it kabuki or something meaningful?

  11. turcopolier says:

    Bob, your analysis of the present situation is. IMO, far too coldly rational and does not reflect the animal passions that have been summoned from the deep. I have a low opinion of trump’s slavish fealty to the Zionists, but we have now gone far beyond that. The man has been goaded and pissed on for four years and he is being summoned by the neocons to strike Iran in one fell expression of his rage and hurt. I suppose that you understand that he has the power to attack Iran using the powers given to all president/CinCs since the Cold War. I hope you do not think that if he uses the Football and Gold Codes that the armed forces would not attack. They have been programed to believe that Iran is our greatest enemy and an agency of the devil. Milley, his enemy, is NOT in the chain of commend. He would play no role in this. Since Goldwater-Nichols the Chairman, JCS and Joint Staff HAVE NOT been in the chain of comment. They are advisers to SECDEF and POTUS. The present chain of command runs from POTUS to SECDEF to the Combatant Commanders.

  12. Chuck Light says:

    Blue Peacock: As I understand the process, at least one member of the House of Representatives and one member of the Senate must both object to the approval of the Certification of Electors provided by each State to the Congress prior to December 14.
    If at least one member of each House does object, then each House, separately, conducts two hours of debate on whether to approve the Certification of Electors. As I understand it (I could be wrong on this), there will be five minutes of debate afforded to each member, so that each House can have (if they wish) twelve members participate in the actual debate.
    Once the debate is concluded, each House will vote to approve or disapprove the Electoral slate provided by each state. A simply majority of both Houses must vote to disapprove the certification of Electors. If either House votes to approve the Electors submitted by the several States, the challenge fails. At that point, the count of Electors (Biden, 306; Trump 232) will be handed to Vice President Pence, presiding over the Joint Session of Congress, and he will announce the final count and the election of Joe Biden as President Elect.
    If, however, a majority of both Houses vote to disapprove the slates of Electors submitted by the several States, the process moves to the House of Representatives who are charged with selecting a new president.
    That is my understanding. I invite corrections to any errors I may have made.

  13. blue peacock says:

    What is the best way to deal with thousands of pro Trump supporters January 6? Push the certification off with a ten day evaluation of evidence. They go home happy. Then go ahead and certify Biden January 17 because they looked and didn’t see evidence.

    I lean in the direction of this tweet. Kabuki! Something DC excels in.

  14. Chuck Light says:

    If I understand the tweet, the argument is that it is better to ignore the Constitution, and continue the crazy, because we need to kowtow to the Trump supporters, and make them happy. Do I read that correctly?
    For me, I have had enough of making Trump supporters happy. IMHO, it would be measurably better if we could get the Trump supporters to grow up. Where in the Constitution does it say there is a ten day grace period for the “evaluation of evidence,” especially when over sixty court actions have looked for the evidence, and found it AWOL?
    Enough is enough. 3,000 Americans are dying every day from a virus which is destroying our national health care system. One dead from COVID-19 every ten days in LA, right Deap? And people exclaim “more Kabuki!” Good God Almighty.

  15. English Outsider says:

    This is ridiculous. It’s not that I reckon the balance of probabilities is that Trump won the election. I would say that wouldn’t I because I happen to be an out and out supporter of Trump 2016 – and in spite of all the setbacks and disappointments since have remained one.
    No, it’s because there’s something here that goes beyond the usual catch as catch can of any election. I don’t need to see any more videos or read any more accounts. There’s enough already to show it should be thrashed out in a proper Court hearing with a fair go given to both sides.
    And that’s not going to happen. This is going to be like MH17 or the cases David Habakkuk writes about. It’s going to be left in an uncertain limbo where all will know something dubious has occurred but no one can prove it for a certainty because all has been swept under the carpet.
    And that in a country where there are more lawyers and such to the square mile than any other country on earth. Ridiculous? The hell. It’s the most squalid cover-up ever.

  16. Fred says:

    The LA Times must have missed the part where the Senator from Texas said he would be willing to argue their case before the Supreme Court. Or did you just not see that mentioned here as well, multiple times.
    Like the term “mostly peaceful”, as in Portland on New Year’s Eve:

  17. blue peacock says:

    “….over sixty court actions have looked for the evidence, and found it AWOL?”
    Chuck Light,
    Have they really? It appears that most of the court challenges have been dismissed prior to a real evaluation of the evidence due to technicalities like standing, which is rather kafkaesque. No standing prior to the election and no standing after the election.
    Why do you think the election authorities in Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin have not done a real audit of the ballots including matching to signatures, voter rolls and of course verifying the legitimacy of the voter including residency and if the voter is alive? What is the explanation of the video in Georgia where after a “water pipe burst” excuse the counting was ostensibly closed for the night and magically roller-bags filled with ballots are pulled from under tables and scanned in a hurry? How come Milwaukee voter turnout was the largest in its history including precincts with 200% turnout? Some of these questions don’t pass the smell test and the fact that they’ve been swept under the rug and buried by the media & authorities only feeds the suspicions.
    Let’s face it, there are many questions and the “authorities” have not done anything to dispel doubts by making it completely transparent. A large portion of the electorate will continue to believe there was fraud. This is all part & parcel of the growing distrust in our institutions just like the Russia Collusion hoax. Dunno where all that leads. But it is clear to me that the Party of Davos is demonstrating naked exercise of power with the Russia Collusion episode, the shampeachment as Covid was been unleashed, and now burying questions on the legitimacy of the election.

  18. Deap says:

    Never underestimate the power of maintaining internal “labor peace” vis a vis elected officials and the highly partisan, virtually 99% Democrat unionized government employee workforce, when it comes to understanding elected official inaction. Or strategic cop-outs.
    This means no matter who gets elected, regardless of pre-election promises of independence and even party affiliation, they soon start working even unconsciously for the internal labor unions, and not for the “will of the people” as previously promised to get elected.
    This is the consequence of slowly turning our system government and power over the smallest details of our lives to the government employee unions self-serving agenda. Including counting the votes and managing the elections departments.
    This also explains the rabid hatred shown President Trump, who in fact did disrupt this status quo, either ham-handed or with surgical precision. It was obvious in some of his earlier books when he clearly identified critical national problems we were neglecting to face, yet showed no understanding of the organized internal resistance he would encounter if he dared take them on.
    Whatever, the existential threat to internal “labor peace” was disturbed by Trump’s election. And they roared back with unprecedented vengeance, to the point today few still even dare to talk about this internal resistance factor directly and by name.
    We can chase the ‘Davos crowd” or the “deep state”, or Russia, Russia, Russia and now China, China, China, and/or Marxism and global communism, when in fact it is far more incestuous power of SEIU, NEA, AFT and AFSCME (etc, etc) who in fact are now the internal command and control of our “exceptional” form of governance.
    Unless you have been an elected official yourself, it is hard to spot the process of this subtle co-option of elected officials even though the consequences scream in your faces. This internal force – “labor peace at all costs” must be put on the table.
    Labor peace is good. But not when the price paid it far too high. “Labor peace” is also a master of disguises. Unmasking them is our only defense. But that would take an honest media. “Labor peace” is also a huge factor in the curious co-option of Silicon Valley, where unions are anathema and they apparently have found ways to buy them off.
    We are not a free nation. We are now only a pin ball randomly bouncing between the electric shocks of two extremes. Not being able to fight deep state election fraud – and not even getting a fair hearing on the topic – is a critical turning point for our nation. I do not exaggerate.
    The immediate gas-lighting by the ersatz Office of the President Elect to getting rebuffed at every point to even fairly investigate charges of election fraud has been breath-taking.

  19. Chuck Light says:

    Blue Peacock:
    You have every right to believe what you want to. You have every right to obtain information upon which you base your beliefs from whatever sources please you. You have every right to ignore information which doesn’t comport with your view of the world. Why would I want to make the effort to convince you of things you choose not to believe, or to ignore because they do not fit your worldview?
    But I will say this. If there was evidence, and by that I mean “relevant and admissible evidence” as those terms are defined in the Federal and State Evidence Codes, any competent attorney would have placed it before every court asked to rule on challenges to the election. Yet the usual refrain of lawyers for the Republican objectors, when asked by judges for the evidence, was that the case was not about massive fraud, but rather about undefined and ill explained “irregularities.”
    What you may hear from your sources is not “relevant and admissible” evidence, it is argument unencumbered by proof. Choose to believe it if you wish, that is your right.
    Let me ask you this. What if I were to tell you that the current president did not win any states. That there was a massive effort to flip votes from Biden to Trump in all of the states that claimed to have voted for Trump. That election workers in Ohio, and Florida, and Texas, and North and South Carolina, had all conspired amongst themselves to steal Biden votes, and to stuff ballot boxes with paper ballots printed in Russia and marked for Trump?
    Would you believe me? Would you insist that I provide proof? Would you demand that any court challenge which I brought be supported by “relevant and admissible” evidence of the fraud which I claim occurred?
    Georgia conducted a paper ballot hand recount. It conducted a machine recount and compared the results with the paper ballot recount. It conducted an audit of the election results. And contrary to your assertion, at the request of the Republican governor, it conducted a signature audit of the absentee ballots to confirm that the signatures on the ballot envelopes matched the voter signatures in the voter rolls. But that is not enough. To satisfy you, and the millions of others who claim fraud in the election, Georgia has to do more. What they have done is not enough, apparently because it doesn’t prove what you believe.
    When, Blue Peacock, is enough enough?

  20. turcopolier says:

    Chuck Light You argument is disingenuous. In the disputed states judges refused to hear the evidence.

  21. Deap says:

    Chuck, recounting junk in-junk out is not corroborating evidence.
    Just the opposite – it circumstantial proof of even more deep state sanctioned fraud. There is a saying worth taking to heat right now: repeated anecdote does not make lawful testimony.
    Re-counting the votes in an uncontested county is not a valid surrogate for the highly tarnished contested vote count in another country. More circumstantial proof of deep state fraud, using deflection rather than strategic fact finding.
    What happened to your smell test, Chuck. Don’t be satisfied with a junk food diet. Honesty does not reject further scrutiny; only fraud does. We are well within the election evaluation buffer zone, for this scrutiny to take place.
    The GOP majority Senate allowed further scrutiny of the 11th hour Kavanaugh charges because to not allow it would smack of intentional suppression. The dignity of the US Supreme Court if it is to function as intended, could not be party to obstructing serious enquiry.
    Yet, that is just what you are now asking to happen -with a high handed cudgel of presumed moral superiority. Bah.

  22. Alexandria says:

    Thanks for your comment. I, too, have been deeply troubled by the increasing evidence of the President’s instability, particularly as reflected in the transcript of the call, if accurate, with Georgia Secretary of State Raffensberger yesterday. I can well understand that the President, in his post-election fury, could also be increasingly angry about the failure of his maximum pressure policy towards Iran, Iran’s continued defiance and the fact that when he leaves office on January 20, his enemies in Tehran will remain standing, unbowed, very much in charge and the recipients of a promised reinstatement of the “Iran Deal”.
    I worry, like you, that Trumpian anger over what he believes was a “stolen election” could be exploited by Netanyahu, the President’s Neocon advisors and, perhaps, certain family members to goad the President into attacking Iran and fulfilling the last item on his agenda, perhaps in response to a false flag operation. I had initially imagined the analogy of a mad bull elephant when thinking and talking about the President’s recent behavior. I am now thinking more about the last days of April, 1945, in the fuhrer-bunker where the maddened Chancellor coming to the conclusion that the German people were not not strong enough, or worthy enough, to achieve his vision of a thousand-year Reich, reached for the “Samsom Option” and brought forth “Gotterdamerung”.
    I am not a fan on the “reductio ad Hitlerum” argument when analyzing the President’s policies and I do not believe that an attack on Iran will leave America in ruins. However, such an attack would lead to mayhem in the middle east with inreasing death and destruction, would be near-ruinous for a world economy already on the mats because of Covid and could do incalculable damage to our political and constitutional structure.
    Thank you for your description of the military chain of command and for your views. We will get through today, the Anniversary of the assassination of General Soleimani, with some anxiety and for the 17 days thereafter.

  23. Chuck Light says:

    I will concede, Colonel, that in many cases the Courts presented with election lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign and Republican supporters of Trump dismissed the cases out of hand due to a lack of standing, or in a couple (few) cases on the legal theory of laches — lack of timeliness. The failure of those courts to consider the evidence does not make their rulings incorrect. For example, if I were to file a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to invalidate the election results in Texas, I don’t think you would disagree with me that I lacked standing to sue Texas, in that I am a California voter and have no connection to Texas. That is basically what the Supreme Court did with the Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. original action.
    I don’t think you would disagree with me either, that dismissal of a case due to laches would be improper if the case could have been brought in March, but the Plaintiffs waited until after the election to raise their complaints. Timeliness is an important aspect of judicial procedure. Wait too long and evidence gets stale, etc.
    But neither are you totally correct, at least as one apparently impartial media source points out. An enterprising journalist in Australia, of all places, published an article on December 19, two weeks ago, where he apparently examined all of the cases up to that time, and was able to put to rest at least the allegation that none of the Courts actually considered the evidence in ruling against the Republicans. He came up with ten cases where the Court actually did consider the evidence presented in support of the complaint, and where the Court uniformly rejected the evidence as either inadmissible hearsay or lacking in relevance.
    Worth a read.

  24. Eric Newhill says:

    Maybe you are unaware that a state senate committee reviewed the election issues and, a couple of days ago, decided to recommend de-certifying Biden’s Georgia electoral votes. This was done based on the evidence.
    “The November 3, 2020 General Election (the “Election”) was chaotic and any reported results must be viewed as untrustworthy. The Subcommittee took evidence from witnesses and received affidavits sworn under oath. The Subcommittee heard evidence that proper protocols were not used to ensure chain of custody of the ballots throughout the Election, after the opening of ballots prior to the Election, and during the recounts. The Subcommittee heard testimony that it was possible or even likely that large numbers of fraudulent ballots were introduced into the pool of ballots that were counted as voted; there is no way of tracing the ballots after they have been separated from the point of origin. The Subcommittee heard testimony of pristine ballots whose origin looked suspicious or which could not be verified and the inability of poll workers to distinguish between test ballots and absentee ballots. Signatures were not consistently verified according to law in the absentee balloting process. Poll watchers on Election Night testified that they had noted that ballots were not secured, that seals and security tags were not used, and the chain of custody was often lax or non-existent.”

  25. blue peacock says:

    When, Blue Peacock, is enough enough?
    Chuck Light,
    That’s a question you ought to ask the Party of Davos. They’ve run the roost for 40+ years. The results being the greatest market concentration in over a century. Unprecedented concentration of wealth. The abrogation of the rule of law with a 2-tier justice system. Constitutional precepts thrown out the window where the security state acts with impunity. Corporations & organizations afforded a greater standing than the natural rights of citizens. Trillions in bailouts for Wall St with privatization of speculative gains and socialization of speculative losses. The dismantling of the American industrial base and the devastation of many towns. The financialization of American economy to the benefit of the financial speculative class. Small businesses destroyed by covid rules while big businesses exempt. On & on.
    Yeah, when is enough, enough?

  26. turcopolier says:

    “unstable” is such an inadequate word.

  27. Chuck Light says:

    Eric: The GA Senate has 56 members, 35 of whom are Republicans, and 21 are Democrats.
    The GA Senate Judiciary Committee has 10 members, 7 of whom are Republicans, and 3 of whom are Democrats.
    The Subcommittee to which you refer has, I believe, six members, although the number may actually be four. Either way, Republicans probably outnumber Democrats either 4 or 5 to 1 or 3 to 1. So it would be reasonable to conclude that they would reach a conclusion similar to their particular politics.
    That said, I want to point out how problematic your post is. You say the Subcommittee heard evidence, and in support of that assertion you quote from Joanne Nova, an Australian personality. She apparently quoted from the Subcommittee report, a part of which you quote verbatim:
    The Subcommittee heard testimony that it was possible or even likely that large numbers of fraudulent ballots were introduced into the pool of ballots that were counted as voted; there is no way of tracing the ballots after they have been separated from the point of origin.
    This is called hearsay, and also speculation, which would make the evidence inadmissible. The same with affidavits. Unless the author of an affidavit testifies in person and is subject to cross-examination, the affidavit is inadmissible as evidence.
    So from what I can tell, a six person subcommittee made up of at least four Republicans heard oral testimony that fraudulent ballots might have been possibly introduced, but nobody could really tell because “there is no way of tracing the ballots after they have been separated from the point of origin.”
    And based on this we should all agree that massive fraud occurred, and that Donald Trump is therefore entitled to the presidency for a second term. Sorry, I don’t agree. But as I said to Blue Peacock, you are entitled to your beliefs, and you are entitled to believe the information you obtain from sources of your choosing.

  28. Eric Newhill says:

    Chuck Light,
    Wrong. You are misrepresenting what the committee reviewed. You are indeed disingenuous.
    Here is a PDF of the actual report.
    Also, your nonchalance regarding elections with no audit trails is disturbing.

  29. Chuck Light says:

    Eric: You didn’t put a link to the full report, so I didn’t comment on it. Disingenuous is such a nice word.
    I was correct about some of which I wrote. The Subcommittee is made up of four Republicans and two Democrats.
    And I stand by what I wrote about what you quoted from the Executive Summary to the Report. You may not agree, but the words speak for themselves.
    As far as elections with no audit trails, I have to say that the efforts Georgia elections officials went to in recounts, audits, comparisons between machine totals and hand counted ballot totals, and signature audits for Cobb County were beyond the call of duty.
    Since you provided the full report, I will read it, and see if anything convinces me that I should change my views of the Georgia election.

  30. optimax says:

    The best evidence of fraud come from the Date Integrity Group’s analysis of computer logs in Fulton County, Georgia. First, 106,000 ballots out of a little over 130,000 were hand corrected supposedly because the optical reader couldn’t read them. The original ballots were destroyed. Any audit afterwards is meaningless. Also, the timeline of the logs show a large number of Trump votes decreased while the exact same number of votes for Biden increased. That is why the Georgia committee recommended decertifying the Georgia vote.
    The video is worth watching. It starts with with three people from DIG explaining their findings.
    Even if some don’t accept that evidence, there’s no way we had a fair election after four years of media propagandizing the gullible that Trump is a racist white supremacist, Hitler-like Nazi. How many people with the opportunity would feel it their duty to make sure Trump lost?

  31. Deap says:

    Only last week did Dr Pulitizer manage to “break into” the Dominion voting system in Georgia, after Dominion assured all county election officials there systems were never, never never connected to the internet.
    Yet they refuse any outside analysis of their voting systems due to trade secret protections – no trust, but verify allowed. Now we know that alone requires and automatic rejection of using such systems in the first place.
    Regardless of Hilary Clinton’s enthusiastic endorsement of Dominion systems use in post-earthquake Haiti ,since she claimed in the obtained email they provide “happy results”.
    Where does one go when this new and material information is now part of the election fraud evidence mix, and the courts have to date rejected all previous claims?
    I believe when the courts ‘did look at the evidence” they rejected not the fact election security breaches happened, but their findings were the evidence of breaches offered the court were “not sufficient to overturn the election” – dead people, double voting, wrong addresses, etc. The evidence being only the ones the plaintiffs had found at that time.
    But the newly evolving case for Dominion internal voting breaches have not yet hit the starting gate. I recommend following this development on Scott Adam’s (Dibert) daily broadcasts- he makes the technology aspects of potential election fraud very accessible for lay persons.
    Because California has also used Dominion voting services, one may fairly assume it may not be as blue as it likes to think it is. We must get to the bottom of this and Democrats need to be demanding this as loudly as we are.
    Why would they stay silent if the exact same claims abut crooked voting and crooked voting systems were made against elections they lost?
    Everyone gains getting to the bottom of this brave new world of election process changes, that have swept into our traditional voting systems over the past few years, accelerating under the guise of “covid” to the perilous extreme in 2020. This election was a mess, no matter what the final outcome. It stinks to high heaven.

  32. Chuck Light says:

    Eric: As promised, I have read the full “Report” which you provided a link to. The first thing I noticed is that the report is not a report of the Subcommittee, but rather the “Chairman’s Report.” As is made clear on page 1:
    This Report by the Subcommittee Chair has not been formally approved by the Subcommittee or the standing Judiciary Committee. It is submitted for informational purposes to be a part of the record at the request of the Judiciary Chair. It is a summary of testimony given in person and by affidavit.
    The second thing I noticed is that there is no indication of whether any witnesses were Democrats. It is clear that there were a lot of witnesses who complained about the processes in place, and who alleged that fraud might have occurred, but the only reference to party affiliation was that certain witnesses were from the Republican party.
    The same objections I stated regarding testimony by affidavit apply to this report. Affidavits are not “relevant and admissible” evidence unless they are subject to cross-examination under oath.
    What is troubling about the Chairman’s summary of the oral testimony is that there is no indication in the report that any witness testifying in person was required to take an oath under penalty of perjury. The witnesses may have been required to swear that their testimony was true and correct, but there is simply no way of knowing.
    Beyond those issues, the report is what it is. A summary of the Republican Chairman regarding information taken at a public hearing. For me, I find the YouTube video of the presentation by the Data Integrity Group more interesting and more problematic, but all in all nothing changes.
    We will either have two more Republicans in the Senate on Wednesday, or two more Democrats, or one of each. And depending on how Tuesday’s runoff elections go, the new administration will have a more difficult, or less difficult relationship with the new Congress.
    What is most clear, in my feeble mind, is that Wednesday’s Kabuki theater performance by Senator Cruz and his followers in the Senate, and the objecting members in the House, will not affect the outcome of the election one whit. Joe Biden was elected, and he will be sworn in on January 20, and we as citizens will either benefit or suffer from the efforts of the next administration.
    Sorry, however, that the Chairman’s Report didn’t move me.

  33. Deap says:

    RE: 400 former Intelligence officers election fraud investigation group:
    …….”Following reports of irregularities surfacing in the 2020 election, the investigation network began to grow substantially. (Robert) Caron claims that the network is made up of former intelligence officers from agencies such as the CIA, FBI, DIA, and the National Security Agency (NSA), just to name a few.
    “The fraud was so massive and so blatant, despite what the mainstream media said, that we need to get this information out to the public,” declared Caron. “That’s why more and more people from the intelligence community and law enforcement are coming out, which is unheard of.”

  34. optimax says:

    Chuck Light
    The DGI’s analysis of computer timelines recording a decrease in the number of Trump votes can be either verified or debunked by other qualified computer nerds. When counting votes they can only increase and not decrease for any candidate. We will see what happens. So far the MSM has ignored the story.
    I’ve become a fan of Scott Adams.

  35. Fred says:

    Audits are for your taxes, your employer’s taxes , Trump’s taxes, osha compliance, EEOC compliance, and so on. Audits for elections? Why would we ever need those.
    Optimax, “The original ballots were destroyed”. Of course, because we never have computer problems or need an audit of an election.

Comments are closed.