I have questions. Plenty of them. I like to be able to predict the future, at least the immediate future, so I can make plans and be prepared.
But I do not know what will be the outcome of events on Wednesday,
January 6th.
Here’s what we can be fairly sure will happen. The House and
Senate convene at 1:00 PM (EST). Vice-President Mike Pence presides at the counting
of the electoral votes.
The VP-Dependent Scenarios
One unlikely scenario is that VP Pence looks at the dueling electors sent in from seven states, chooses which ones he prefers to count, and dismisses the others. It does appear that he is granted power to do that (Article 2, Section 1, US Constitution). And there is precedent. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both did it, both to their own advantage. If VP Pence chooses the Republican electors, rather than the Democrat electors who were certified based on fraudulent vote counting, then President Trump wins.
 |
| VP Mike Pence and President Donald Trump on election night 2020 screenshot image found here |
Another unlikely scenario is that VP Pence looks at the Democrat
electors sent in from the swing states where voter fraud is known to be rampant
and refuses to count those votes, because they should not have been certified. The
Republican electors from those states likely represent the actual will of the
voters, but their votes were not certified. (Note: when Jefferson counted
Georgia’s sketchy, uncertified votes, he chose to count them anyway, which he had
authority to do.) Those states, then, have no electors in the count. If this
happens for all of those states, no one gets 270 electors a majority of
electoral votes.
I’ve heard two versions of what then happens. One is that,
when no one reaches 270, then the House votes, one vote per state based on
state delegation (majority of House members from that state). If this happens, President
Trump wins, because Republicans hold a majority of House delegations.
The other version is that, once you take out the electors
from those states, a majority is based on the remaining states. No House vote
is needed. And Trump leads and wins.
These VP-dependent scenarios all seem unlikely, however,
because VP Pence has not been doing any PR preparation, to show that he is
considering such a move, and giving reasoning, such as the clear and
overwhelming evidence of voter fraud in the contested states with dueling
electors. To take upon himself the authority to declare the winner without
laying the groundwork would look to half the country like he’s usurping
authority, regardless of what is granted in the Constitution and the law.
The Congress-Dependent Scenarios
A likely scenario for Wednesday is that the electors from the
contested states will be protested. In order for this to happen, one House
member and one Senator must protest, in writing. This triggers a two-hour
deliberation in the separate chambers, where the protesting representatives
will be allowed to show their reasoning.
This is likely to happen, because we have, at last count, 100
Congressman, starting with Mo Brooks of Alabama, and 12 Senators, starting with
Josh Hawley of Missouri, who have declared that they will protest the counting
of electoral votes.
Protests have happened more frequently than we are usually
aware. You don’t remember any? In a statement on Saturday (containing more that
we’ll cover below), Senator Ted Cruz recalled some history:
At that quadrennial joint session, there is long precedent of
Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential election
results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. And, in both 1969 and 2005,
a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in
both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged.
The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877,
following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden
presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states—Florida,
Louisiana, and South Carolina—were alleged to have been conducted illegally.
So, the protests have happened before. And protests that
affect the outcome are not unprecedented.
Protests on Wednesday are highly likely to happen. The
numbers involved—the number of states being contested, the number of House and
Senate members protesting—are unprecedented. There is more reason to suppose
these protests have merit than there has ever been. And the President has asked
for Americans to show up en masse at the capitol to “encourage” the
legislature to hear them loud and clear.
Then what? Two hours (possibly more) of deliberation in the
separate chambers. It is unclear to me whether there are two hours granted for
each protest—which could be a protest against a state’s slate of electors or a
protest against each particular elector, or two hours to encompass all protests
against any and all disputed electors. If there are multiple protests of two
hours each, likely the process will not end on Wednesday.
We know how any presentation by protestors should go.
Reasons for the protests should be presented to the body. Then there would be
discussion and a vote to accept or reject the protestations. I have heard that
the President’s team has a strong and succinct summary of the evidence of voter
fraud in each state. If nothing else, this would be a great opportunity for the evidence to be
presented to the American people, unfiltered by the media. For many people,
this would be the first time such evidence would be brought before them. It
could be so compelling that no one in their right mind would say, “That’s not
real evidence, and it doesn’t matter.”
But in the House Nancy Pelosi still controls the rules. And, even though it is unpolitic, unethical, and obviously wrong before the American people, she may obstruct the presentation. Meanwhile, in the Senate, where Republicans theoretically have a majority, Mitch McConnell runs the meeting. A week ago, he was “discouraging” (threatening?) any senators from joining in the protests; without a single senator to join the protest of the House, it would amount to nothing and there would be no two-hour deliberation. But he has lost control of that possibility, now that multiple senators are joining.
Again, if
the senators are shown clear evidence of fraud in each of the contested states,
showing that Trump was the clear winner and not Biden—and the American public
has also seen that evidence—you might have a chance of persuading most of the
Republican senators to do the right thing. Maybe even a few Democrats, if we
dream wildly. But, then, we have senators like Mitt Romney (a huge
disappointment) and Ben Sasse (formerly highly respected constitutional
conservative) insisting that this is all Trump showboating because the outcome
has already been announced and the courts already ruled. Except that this
process is part of the announcement, and not a single court has viewed the
evidence, let alone ruled on it. They are simply wrong, or disingenuous.
So we cannot trust the House or the Senate to overrule the
claimed Biden victory, and both must agree with the protest for it to take
effect.
If we had elected people who are serious about their oath to
uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, we could guarantee
another four years for President Trump, who I believe clearly won the actual
popular vote and Electoral College vote by large margins.
The Election Commission Scenario
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
photo by Andrew Harnik/AP, found here
Senator Ted Cruz offers an additional alternative, based on
what happened in 1887:
In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did
the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine
democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of
five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider
and resolve the disputed returns.
We should follow that precedent. To wit, 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. 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 January 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.
The other 11 protesting Senators agree to this proposal. This is an interesting suggestion, politically. It gives the legislators
something to vote for that tells their constituents, “I’m taking the
allegations of fraud seriously,” without requiring the steel backbone required
for actually overturning the media-declared Biden victory. It’s easier to
obtain this vote for a commission.
The commission would presumably be appointed and begin its
ten days on January 7th, and finish by January 17th,
three days ahead of the inauguration. If the commission were to find enough
evidence of fraud—and there is such evidence, already shown to state
legislators in the contested states—then that announcement would allow the
contested states to decertify their original electors and certify a new set of
electors (actually, to certify the alternate Republican electors already sent).
Here’s the problem I have: who sits on this commission? How
is that decided? And how can we possibly trust them? I can think of five
senators I would trust; they are all Republican. I cannot think of a Democrat I
would trust, and yet I recognize there would need to be someone. Presumably
there would be three of one party and two of the other in each third of the
commission. So, I’m guessing 3 GOP and 2 DEM senators, because Republicans hold
the majority in the Senate. But, even so, do I get my choice? I want Ted Cruz
to be one, but I would very much oppose my other senator, Cornyn, from being
one of them. I haven’t heard much from Sen. Mike Lee since election day, but maybe I
would trust him. Maybe Senator Lankford of Oklahoma. Maybe Sen. Josh Hawley, who was the first to stand
up to protest.
The House would probably get 3 DEM and 2 GOP
representatives, because the House has a Democrat majority. I would not trust
any DEM. I might trust Rep. Mo Brooks, who was the first to stand up against
the fraud. And then find the most honest and best at data science among the
other 140 who protested.
Then there are the Supreme Court Justices—who refused the Texas case on standing, which is the same as saying, “We don’t want to hear the evidence because it’s a political hot potato, and we’re cowards.” I think we can trust Justices Thomas and Alito, who both saw the need to hear the case. I don’t know that I can come up with five I can trust. Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor are out of the question. So is Roberts. The five must then include Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, all Trump appointees but none of whom saw fit to hear the Texas case, or any other election fraud related case so far.
In other words, I don’t have faith in this commission. If it
worked, it could be the singular best way to restore faith in the election
process and outcome. But if it’s just a matter of partisans playing more
politics while ignoring the evidence, then what recourse do the American people
have left to them with only three days remaining until the inauguration of a
dastardly corrupt and demented man whom the actual voters rejected in the
election? I don’t see how such a person can rule over a free people who know
the truth about him and his ilk—except by totalitarian force, which I imagine
is the plan. And I just can't accept that as a possible outcome.
Other Notable
Election News
Georgia Runoff
So, I don’t know what is going to happen on Wednesday. I
also don’t know what is happening Tuesday in the Georgia senatorial runoff
races. I don’t understand why we are assuming, first, that the November election
was fair enough to actually require a runoff. If there were that many
fraudulent ballots in Georgia related to the presidential race, why are we
assuming the other races were left untouched? And if the same equipment is
being used, why are we assuming we can trust the outcome of this runoff
election?
Oddly, Facebook took down fundraising accounts for both GOP senator candidates, just the week
before the election. An error in the algorithm, they said, as they restored the
accounts with a mea culpa but no compensation for the lost critical
fundraising time. Notably, I heard nothing about the Facebook algorithm affecting
the Democratic candidates’ pages.
Georgia Hearing
Jovan Pulitzer at the Georgia hearing, announcing that the ongoing
election had equipment online and was easily hacked in real time.
Last week, during a legislative hearing in Georgia on
election fraud, there were some fireworks. One testifier was a mathematician and data scientist named Jovan Hutton Pulitzer. The main part of his testimony was about forensic
examination of ballots. He believes that, given access to the actual paper
ballots, or to a high-resolution image of the ballot, he can identify where
that ballot traveled, how it was folded and unfolded, how it was fed into a
counting machine—and how many times—and other data that would be pertinent. I’d
heard him say this before.
But then he came back a little later in the hearing, just
given a minute or two, to let the committee know that, that very hour, his team
had found their way into the voting system, then ongoing for the early voting
of the Senate runoffs, is how I understood it—and found those machines
connected online, which is illegal for them to be at any time. There was two-way data exchange. And given that
access, it was possible for a person to affect the outcome by changing votes.
This is huge. The committee sort of looked stunned, nodded, and said thank you
and moved on. But that news has been reverberating. Whoever said those machines
were never online lied. This is live evidence. He testified that his team has that access
documented.
The rest of that hearing shows numerous other ways election
fraud was committed, and how various forensic techniques have identified it.
Pretty fascinating. I’m not sure what that committee plans to act on, but it
was a good revelation of fraud, with some approaches we hadn’t seen before.
Georgia SOS Phonecall
President Trump on phonecall
AP photo found here
In other news, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger,
the one who promised an actual audit but didn’t mean it, recorded a private
phonecall with President Trump and others—and leaked it. In the phonecall, the
President was pointing out that there is only a small margin of votes
separating the winners, and there’s plenty of evidence to cover that distance. The
leaked part is being spun as President Trump ordering the SOS to go out and
scrounge up enough votes, inventing them out of whole cloth. And that’s the
story the press is running with. I think we can be pretty sure that story is another
lie from a liar, and that President Trump was saying—we don’t even have to
prove all these many evidences of voter fraud; we only need this number. And we’ve
got that and far more.
Lawmakers Hear Evidence
Over the weekend, around 300 lawmakers from the six
contested swing states were briefed on election fraud evidence by Peter Navarro,
Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman, and others. And the President also spoke to
them. The website of Got Freedom? has catalogued the evidence as a resource to these lawmakers. Phill Kline, head
of the Thomas More Foundation’s Amistad Project, hosted the call. He stated:
The integrity of our elections is far too important to treat
cavalierly, and elected officials deserve to have all relevant information at
their disposal as they consider whether to accept the reported results of the
2020 elections, especially in states where the process was influenced by
private interests.
This could be helpful if Senator Cruz’s plan to have an
electoral commission plays out. The state legislators will be aware of the
evidence and will be prepared to act to replace electors at the appropriate
time.
Odd
Chatter
I’ve also been receiving plenty of chatter that, in this
weird year, may be in the realm of possibility, but I find it confusing. Attorney
Lin Wood put out a storm of tweets, asserting things from Justice Roberts being involved in pedophile slavery to
Jeffrey Epstein being alive and ready to spill the beans on a whole host of
corrupt elites. I have a difficult time determining outright lies. Wood seems
to me to be honest and God-fearing, so breaking one of the Ten Commandments
with a blatant lie seems less likely than that he is deceived. Lawyer Robert Barnes thinks he’s been deceived. Could those things be true? I suppose. But just as likely is that those are disinformation.
The hope that there has been some big plan all along, just
being allowed to play out seems less certain to me than praying for our
political representatives to grow spines of steel and act according to the rule
of law. But who knows? I keep reading and viewing those things. When/if I feel
peace about them, I’ll let you know.
In the meantime, my continued prayer is that every single
instance of voter fraud is uncovered (this seems to be happening), and that we
will be able to root out the corruption from our government. I don’t know for
certain that this prayer will be answered the way I envision and want. I do
know that God is in control; He has a plan that I am only beginning to attempt
to understand. And as long as I keep my connection to Him, life will go as it
should.
Sources Used
Above, Plus a Few
·
“‘Massive Amounts of Evidence Will Be Presented’
on Jan. 6: Trump” by Jack Phillips for The Epoch Times, Jan. 1, 2021. https://www.theepochtimes.com/massive-amounts-of-evidence-will-be-presented-on-jan-6-trump_3640546.html
·
“Lankford: Proposed Electoral Commission Would Review 2020 Voting” by Zachary Stieber for The Epoch Times, Jan. 3,
2021.
·
“Joint Statement from Senators Cruz, Johnson, Lankford, Daines, Kennedy, Blackburn, Braun, Senators-Elect Lummis, Marshall, Hagerty, Tuberville” on Sen. Ted Cruz’s website, Jan. 2, 2021.
·
“LIVE: Giuliani Testifies—Georgia Senate Subcommittee Continues Hearing on Election Issues” The Epoch Times,
Dec. 30, 2020.
·
“6-Person Team Briefs Hundreds of State Lawmakers on Election Irregularities” by Zachary Stieber for The Epoch Times,
Jan. 3, 2021.
·
Got Freedom? evidence collection website
·
“Trump Ga. Transcript Shows Case for Vote Fraud, President Acted Properly” Newsmax Wires, Jan. 3, 2021.
·
Lin Wood’s tweet storm compiled on Facebook
·
“Sen. Ted Cruz to Lead Senate GOP in Opposing Certification” Newsmax Wires, Jan. 2, 2021.
·
“Georgia Legislative Hearing Analysis, Lin Wood’s Emergency SCOTUS Petition, Sen. Ben Sasse Statement” Robert F. Gruler, R&R
Law Group, Dec. 31, 2020.
·
“Jovan Pulitzer Reveals Live, Real-Time Hacking of Dominion Voting Systems at Fulton County Polling Station” by Niamh Harris
for News Punch, Dec. 31, 2020.
·
“Sidney Powell Releases a KRAKEN STORM!” Doug
TenNapel on YouTube, Jan. 3, 2021. https://youtu.be/IYyvCzT0h50
·
“The [DS] Had Their Chance, Trump Ready to Go Sky Fortress Engaged” X22 Report, Ep. 2369B, Jan. 4, 2021.
·
“Exclusive: Over 432,000 Votes Removed From Trump in Pennsylvania: Data Scientists Say” Facts Matter
with Roman Balmakov, Jan. 4, 2021.
·
“Ep. 42: Electoral CHALLENGES; Barnes' Twitter
HACKED! WEAPONIZED Discipline? Lockdown HYPOCRISY” Viva Frei and Robert Barnes
Livestream, Jan. 3, 2021.
·
“Facebook Shuts Down Page for GOP Senate Campaigns Just Before Georgia Runoffs” by Zachary Stieber for The Epoch Times,
Jan. 2, 2021.
· “Pence to Decide Race? Law Profs Say VP Allowed to 'Count' Electoral Votes” by Bob Unruh for WND, Dec. 8, 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment