Multiple senators plan to oppose certifying election results

They only want transparency.....the dems are whining about it.

 

Sorry... only one ridiculous Special Counsel allowed per term, and Barr already made his choice...

He chose poorly...

 

Transparency requested from somebody who doesn't apparently know **** about the constitution is weak sauce......

 

No you dont. Standing requires some level of evidence that you ARE being harmed. That’s why the courts have turned down EVERY case because they have not one shred of evidence.

Standing is not a right, it requires evidence that you have been harmed.

JFC this country is doomed

 

The constitution states, "The President of the Senate shall in the presence of the senate and the house of representatives, open all Certificates, and the votes shall be counted." Article II, section 1. There's nothing in the constitution about challenging the electoral votes. It's moot, but challenging the count is based on an old 1800's law. That law in itself may be unconstitutional, but that will be left up to the SCOTUS to decide.

Of course I'm reading the constitution in plain English, not lawyerese. Lawyerese can say something completely different than plain English.

Besides of the above, exit polls or who folks voted for match or comes real close to matching the final results. There is really no discrepancy between who folks told the pollsters they voted for and the official results.This poll is of over 15,000 people.

With all this talk of election fraud, I decided to check to see how the exit polls of over 15,000 voters match up to the actual results. Here’s the exit polls.


https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results


According to the exit polls, Democrats made up 37% of those who actually voted, they voted 94-5 Biden over Trump. Rather simple math .95 times 37 comes out to 35.15 while .05 times 37 comes to 1.85. republicans made up 36% of those who actually voted. Trump won republicans 94-6 over Biden. Again .94 times 36 equals 33.94 for Trump, .06 times 36 equals 2.16. Independents made up 26% of those who voted, Biden won independents 54-41. Again .54 times 26 equals 14.04 for Biden and .41 times 26 equals 10.66 for Trump. Exit polling data shows Biden winning 51.35% to Trump’s 46.45% with the rest going to third party candidates. The actual results were 51.3% for Biden, 46.9 for Trump.


Okay, not an exact match, but really close. Of course exit polling is just going by what people told the pollster how they voted. But who people told the pollster who they voted for comes within a hair of the actual results. Which if there were massive fraud, one would expect a big difference. Now if the exit polling or folks telling the pollster that 50% of them voted for Trump whereas only 46% was the actual results, that would have shown massive fraud. But to be this close to the final results throws massive fraud out the window.

 

Oh bull. What they want is their fix: Trump.

 

Sen Cruz is actually proposing an electoral commission based on precedence set in the 1876 Presidential election, in which there were allegations of fraud in multiple states. In 1876, Congress and the SCOTUS did the same thing Sen Cruz is proposing today.

If you think this is 'sedition' you don't know the meaning of the word.

https://history.house.gov/Historica...vote-count-of-the-1876-presidential-election/

 

Both Democrats and Republicans should read Navarro's report on election fraud.

Navarro Report
https://www.scribd.com/document/488495896/Navarro-Report

 

For what?

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/488495896/Navarro-Report

 

Complaining?? No you confuse pointing out reality with complaining. Its the rightists that are complaining and whining.

 

Navarro......HAHAHAHA
Bigger idiot than Ted cruz and Gohmert!

 

Simply amazing ain't it.

"You're mistaken. That isn't true."

""You sound scared. Why all the whining?"

It's like trying to communicate with another universe.

 

Or with a child.

 

No ... the purveyors of the “election fraud” hoax do not want transparency. They want to destroy democracy in America. The Congressmen and women who do this are traitors to America. The enemy of the nation.

 

George Conway on the fake Christian and fake patriot Mike Pence:

Pathetic. Weak. Spineless. Shameless. Shameful. Disgraceful. Deplorable. Unprincipled. Mendacious. Reprehensible. Despicable.

 

If 2004 was even 2% like 2020 us political geeks would have remembered it. This mentioning of 2004 is nothing but one big "but whataboutism".

 

So if I was being politically correct and polite I would use the descriptions of Pence as "Weak and Spineless" instead of "Eunuch". Well Schiest Pence is way more of a Eunuch somit stands.

 

I would 't that many Americans believe in such nonsense but Trump fans surely do.

 

I didn't remember it, so thanks to my Google machine....

it certainly wasn't the big deal this BS is turning out to be....

 

He left out ...... well, not much really.

It's sort of hard to be Shameless and Shameful at the same time, but that's a Republican for ya...

 

There's a bit of confusion over what it means when the supreme court does not conduct a hearing.

First thing's first, hearing does not mean ruling. A "hearing" is essentially the supreme court's equivalent of a trial, just like how a court can decide a criminals case isn't significant enough to go to trial (be it from lack of standing or lack of evidence) the supreme court can make a similar ruling on a lawsuit, especially when said ruling is unanimous, as was the case with the Texas lawsuit. However, no ruling does not mean there is no review. Although the court ruling was written by only two of the justices, every member of the supreme court reviews said ruling, and in the end, none of the supreme court justices added any dissenting opinions on the ruling itself. When there are no dissenting opinions on a ruling from any of the justices, that ruling is less likely to advance to the hearing process. It's essentially the same thing as a request for legal charges failing to go to trial.

In regards to the meaning of a case lacking "standing", the word "standing" in a court ruling is a legal term which is: "the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case"

In regards to the US senate, it is not their duty to overrule a ruling made by the supreme court, unless we are talking about amending the US constitution. Having congress reject the outcome of an election because they do not agree with the state and federal investigations, along with the 59 court rulings made in relation to the election, does set a precedence where elections are no longer determined by the peoples' votes, but the votes of the ruling party of congress.

Realistically speaking, challenging the outcome of the election will have a unanimous decision from Democrats, but will not be unanimous among Republicans. There will likely be many Republicans in the House and the Senate (if not a majority) who would reject such notion, for the reasons listed above

 

WRONG.

It IS a LIE that the elections in various states were "stolen".

Period. Full Stop.

That entire 'it was stolen" narrative is Fake BS started by Trump (A Sore LOSER).

"The Election was stolen"
"Bigfoot Exists"
"The Earth is flat"

^Three statementx on par with each other.

And, once again back to the OP, the Clown Show that these Senators have planned is a Fool's Errand (that will change nothing)

 

I interpret the good Republican George to mean is that the traitorous coup mongers are behaving in a shameful manner but do not have the decency to have shame hense those Turds are shameless.

 

What receipts?