December 24, 2020
Mike Pence is being held out as the potential savior of a fair election
By Andrea Widburg
For the most part, Americans assume that the Vice President lacks power. The President may assign him responsibilities, but the Constitution does not. Instead, he’s the understudy, there just in case something happens to the president. Except that, in this strange year of 2020, we may learn that the Vice President is the most powerful man in America. Ivan Raiklin, a constitutional lawyer, claims that the Constitution grants Mike Pence the power to overturn a manifestly fraudulent election.
On December 22, Raiklin sent out a tweet urging Pence to inform the Secretaries of State in those six contested states that, despite overwhelming evidence of fraud, certified Electors, that he cannot accept those certifications because the electors were not legally appointed.
The tweet has attached a memorandum for President Trump that purports to come from the White House itself, for it’s written on what appears to be official White House letterhead. Here’s my attempt to summarize in plain English the core claims in the memorandum:
Under Art. II, Section 1 of the Constitution, each state, as its legislature “may direct,†will “appoint†its Electors. Because the six disputed states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) ran entirely fraudulent elections, and because their Legislatures did not dictate fraudulent elections, there is nothing to certify. (For the vast scope of both traditional and electronic fraud in each state, you can find an excellent short summation here and an excellent long summation here.)
Because the legislatures in those six states did not authorize fraud as a basis for selecting Electors, those six states, on December 14, could not and did not validly certify their Electors. The problem is one of fraud in the inception: When fraud permeates an election, the state lacks the power to appoint Electors because no law authorizes the state to act in the absence of an honest election. Notably, more than 50 courts have refused to examine the mountains of evidence attesting to illegality in the elections. The cases were decided only on procedural grounds. Thus, no authority within these states has ever properly ruled upon election fraud. There is, however, one person who can examine that evidence and act accordingly.
more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/mike_pence_is_being_held_out_as_the_potential_savior_of_a_fair_election.html
