Cruz leads additional GOP Senators in objecting to the EV count

[skeeter]

They might not be able to win this one, but they damn sure better fight.

 

[Polly Ticks]

McConnell, Cornyn, and the rest of them must be made to understand that this is about elections, not about Trump; that their constituencies have been harmed by the procedures followed in PA and other states during this election;
[...]
This cannot be about Trump if it's going to have a chance of uniting significant numbers of R office holders.  It must be about elections.

Agreed. I have written to both my Senators (McConnell and Paul) urging them to support the proposed audit and I never once referenced Trump in those letters.  It's not about him.  It's about the integrity of the process.

[bilo]

I would like to think that Cruz and others will have an impact to save this election (doubtful I know).

Since Cruz lost in his bid for the presidency I have always thought that Trump and Cruz would undoubtedly make an unstoppable and unbeatable team.  IF they do decide to ban together, I hope that Trump becomes unleashed and unrestrained ... Cruz I hope so to, but he has two daughters, so, I'm not sure of what's going to happen. 

Would I follow both of them to fight for this country?  Without hesitation!

We see it the same way.

I have no doubt the fix is in at this point. I want to see who stands on the side of America first.

[libertybele]

No.  Cruz and co are not defending Trump.  Their press release is not about Trump.  They are defending the credibility of American elections.  The R establishment is not going to defend Trump; perhaps they should, but they won't.  They detest him.  If this effort is branded as yet another part of the Trump phenomenon there is no way the R party will unite behind it.

McConnell, Cornyn, and the rest of them must be made to understand that this is about elections, not about Trump; that their constituencies have been harmed by the procedures followed in PA and other states during this election; and if they don't get on board the effort to preserve credible elections they'll be primaried.

They might not be able to win this one, but they damn sure better fight.

If they don't fight this then they're telling us that it's OK for PA to have 200,000 completely fictitious "votes" included in its final tally; that it's OK for GA to send the poll watchers home and then immediately break out additional cases of ballots to continue counting with no oversight; that it's OK for precincts and counties to report 99% of their votes for one candidate during the wee hours of the morning.

By all means the R establishment needs to feel the wrath of the R voters, but that establishment simply will not get behind an attempt to rescue Trump.  It doesn't matter whether they should, they won't.  This cannot be about Trump if it's going to have a chance of uniting significant numbers of R office holders.  It must be about elections.

Agreed.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

(Pirro Opening Statement) Video:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1345604625345490944

12:35 AM · Jan 3, 2021·Twitter for iPhone


January 6th:   

[Right_in_Virginia]

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) issued the following statement in advance of the Electoral College certification process on January 6, 2021:

"America is a Republic whose leaders are chosen in democratic elections. Those elections, in turn, must comply with the Constitution and with federal and state law.

"When the voters fairly decide an election, pursuant to the rule of law, the losing candidate should acknowledge and respect the legitimacy of that election. And, if the voters choose to elect a new office-holder, our Nation should have a peaceful transfer of power.

"The election of 2020, like the election of 2016, was hard fought and, in many swing states, narrowly decided. The 2020 election, however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.

"Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.

"And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread. 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%).

"Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.

"But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear. It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations.

"Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.

"On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to certify the 2020 election results. That vote is the lone constitutional power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud.

"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.

"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.

"We are not naïve. We fully expect most if not all Democrats, and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise. But support of election integrity should not be a partisan issue. 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. We owe that to the People.

"These are matters worthy of the Congress, and entrusted to us to defend. We do not take this action lightly. We are acting not to thwart the democratic process, but rather to protect it. And every one of us should act together to ensure that the election was lawfully conducted under the Constitution and to do everything we can to restore faith in our Democracy."

###

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5541

[Right_in_Virginia]

Senator James Lankford
17 hrs ·

Millions of Americans, including thousands of Oklahomans, still have significant questions about the November 3 election process. We have reports of problems with voting machines, people voting twice, non-residents voting in a state, or people mysteriously voting after their death months or years before. In some states, there were problems with signature verification, different rules for mail-in ballots than in-person ballots, delayed receipt of ballots, inconsistent curing of ballots, a lack of meaningful access to the polls, or a questionable counting process for partisan poll watchers. Many of these questions have been reviewed by state leaders and courts, but questions still persist. These are not questions that exist in the dark corners of the internet, but ones I hear at the grocery store, the gas station, through text messages, and on phone calls.

For the sake of the nation’s unity, these questions should not be ignored.

Today, I am joining a group of Senators to propose an election commission, modeled on the commission formed in 1877, to resolve the electoral issues of the election of 1876 when three states, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, had reports of voter fraud. The 1877 commission comprised of five Senators, five members from the House, and five Supreme Court Justices quickly organized to evaluate the election and make a recommendation to provide the nation a way to resolve the issues before the inauguration. The commission we are proposing would be required to meet and complete their audit within 10 days, before the January 20 inauguration. The report of the commission would be submitted to the individual states so each state would still have the final say on their electors, which is the constitutional requirement.

This proposal is not designed to thwart the democratic process. It is designed to protect it. Everyone should see the division currently in the nation, and we all should have an interest in providing a path to resolution. People want answers to their questions.

If we can agree to form the electoral commission and submit its findings to the individual states, I am prepared to respect the final decision of the states. But, if we cannot agree to hear the concerns of millions of Americans, I am prepared to oppose the electors on January 6 since I cannot be certain that they were ‘regularly made,’ which is the statutory requirement.

Senators in 1969 and 2005 raised voter integrity issues during the January 6 Joint Session of Congress. They debated the issues that day, and in both cases, reforms were made to elections in the future. Even if other members are not willing to address the outstanding questions that persist in this election, we must begin a process of reform that will lead to greater election confidence in the future.

https://twitter.com/SenatorLankford/status/1345432097608118273

[Right_in_Virginia]

Sen. Marsha Blackburn
@MarshaBlackburn

I cannot in good conscience turn a blind eye to the countless allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. On January 6, I will vote in favor of objecting to the certification of the electoral college results.

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R—Tenn.) along with Senators Ted Cruz (R—Texas), Senator Ron Johnson (R—Wis.), Senator John Kennedy (R—La.), Senator Mike Braun, (R—Ind.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Senator James Lankford (R—Okla.) and Senators-elect Bill Hagerty (R—Tenn.), Cynthia Lummis (R—Wyo.), Tommy Tuberville (R—Ala.) and Roger Marshall (R—Kan.) announced they will vote to oppose the results of the 2020 election. They are also calling for Congress to 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.

“On behalf of Tennesseans, we are taking a united stand against the tainted electoral results from the recent Presidential election,” said Senator Marsha Blackburn and Senator-elect Bill Hagerty. “American democracy relies on the consent of the governed. Allegations of voter fraud, irregularities and unconstitutional actions diminish public confidence in what should be a free, fair and transparent process. Protecting the integrity of the electoral process is paramount to preserving trust and legitimacy in the final outcome.” 

“For critical moments like these, the Constitution reserves the right to challenge the Electoral College results to members of Congress. On January 6, we will vote to oppose certification of the 2020 election results.”

12:58 PM · Jan 2, 2021·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/1345429206138843140

[Right_in_Virginia]

Mark R. Levin
@marklevinshow

1. What has happened to Toomey over the last few years is quite sad.  Is he aware of what took place in his state, of the objections from the state legislature, of the changes to the election laws by the state supreme court and the executive there,

Burgess Everett
@burgessev

Toomey comes out swinging: “A fundamental, defining feature of a democratic republic is the right of the people to elect their own leaders. The effort by Senators Hawley, Cruz, and others to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election ...directly undermines this right”

2. and the federal Constitution's grant of authority to the legislature exclusively.  TOOMEY SHOULD BE LEADING THE FIGHT in defense of his state.  But instead, he damns those who are doing it for him.


5:03 PM · Jan 2, 2021·Twitter for Android

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1345490941415723008

[Right_in_Virginia]

Mark R. Levin
@marklevinshow

Congratulations to Ted Cruz and these Senate colleagues for stepping up against the mob!



3:55 PM · Jan 2, 2021·Twitter for Android

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1345473715501469696

[Fishrrman]

From the source article:
"A group of GOP senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, will object to the Jan. 6 certification of the presidential election results next week unless there is an emergency 10-day audit of the results by an electoral commission."

THIS IS A TRAP !!!

It's designed to PREVENT votes of objection, to keep that from happening!

Read what it says, EVERY word:
"will object to the Jan. 6 certification of the presidential election results next week unless there is an emergency 10-day audit"

That means, if the Senators can be lured into agreeing with this "audit" -- which will produce NOTHING and change NOTHING (biden becomes president) -- there will be no "objections", and no chance that the Electoral College votes will in fact be rejected by the Senate, which would have the effect of forcing the House to choose the president and the Senate to choose the Vice President.

The only chance for Mr. Trump to win is for the Senate objections to actually take place (NO detour around them for an "audit").

I realize it's the longest of long shots, but the Senate must be forced into a vote to either accept or reject the electors presented before them by the Electoral College.

If they vote "aye", biden becomes president.
If they vote "no", the "votes by state delegations" will take place in both Houses.
In the latter, Mr. Trump may actually have a chance to win.

Mr. Cruz has let us down yet again.

[sneakypete]

Impossible.  I keep hearing Ted Cruz is cowering under his desk with the Commie Chinese.

@Cyber Liberty

He's not,but watch him disappear until he needs another headline.

[HoustonSam]

The only chance for Mr. Trump to win is for the Senate objections to actually take place (NO detour around them for an "audit").

Even if the dozen GOP Senators announce that they will object under any circumstances they will not have a majority in the Senate, and under no circumstances will the GOP have a majority in the House.

This is not about Trump winning.  It's about elections being credible, and about forcing Rs to take a clear position on that necessity.

[sneakypete]

Are you saying we should play nice now and give the democrats their steal so they'll play nice with us in 2024?  Seriously?

Edited to add:  @kevindavis

@Right_in_Virginia   @kevindavis

Well,that IS the traditional RINO Batt.......,uh,surrender cry!

[sneakypete]

No.  Cruz and co are not defending Trump.  Their press release is not about Trump.  They are defending the credibility of American elections.  The R establishment is not going to defend Trump; perhaps they should, but they won't.  They detest him.  If this effort is branded as yet another part of the Trump phenomenon there is no way the R party will unite behind it.[/b]

 

@HoustonSam

And there it is.

The RINO's had rather loose and see Biden in the WH,than see Trump serve another term.

[sneakypete]

Agreed. I have written to both my Senators (McConnell and Paul) urging them to support the proposed audit and I never once referenced Trump in those letters.  It's not about him.  It's about the integrity of the process.

@HoustonSam   @Polly Ticks

The plain and simple truth is that if it weren't for Trump there wouldn't BE anything to fight for.

If one of the usual RINO suspects had ran,he would have lost,quickly bowed to his or her Dim Masters,and there would be nothing to fight about.

[HoustonSam]

@HoustonSam

And there it is.

The RINO's had rather loose and see Biden in the WH,than see Trump serve another term.

Yes, that is what they prefer.  So it has to be made clear for them that the issue is not Trump, it's elections.  Would they really rather see elections permanently relegated to farce in order to deny Trump a second term?  Some probably would; let's force them to identify themselves unambiguously.

[sneakypete]

From the source article:
"A group of GOP senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, will object to the Jan. 6 certification of the presidential election results next week unless there is an emergency 10-day audit of the results by an electoral commission."

THIS IS A TRAP !!!

It's designed to PREVENT votes of objection, to keep that from happening!

Read what it says, EVERY word:
"will object to the Jan. 6 certification of the presidential election results next week unless there is an emergency 10-day audit"

That means, if the Senators can be lured into agreeing with this "audit" -- which will produce NOTHING and change NOTHING (biden becomes president) -- there will be no "objections", and no chance that the Electoral College votes will in fact be rejected by the Senate, which would have the effect of forcing the House to choose the president and the Senate to choose the Vice President.

The only chance for Mr. Trump to win is for the Senate objections to actually take place (NO detour around them for an "audit").

I realize it's the longest of long shots, but the Senate must be forced into a vote to either accept or reject the electors presented before them by the Electoral College.

If they vote "aye", biden becomes president.
If they vote "no", the "votes by state delegations" will take place in both Houses.
In the latter, Mr. Trump may actually have a chance to win.

Mr. Cruz has let us down yet again.

@Fishrrman

Thank you for pointing out the obvious "trap" that most of us,including me,seem to have missed.

[Fishrrman]

Houston Sam wrote:
"Even if the dozen GOP Senators announce that they will object under any circumstances they will not have a majority in the Senate, and under no circumstances will the GOP have a majority in the House.
This is not about Trump winning.  It's about elections being credible, and about forcing Rs to take a clear position on that necessity."

Everything you wrote above is... wrong.

You clearly don't understand (or haven't thought through) "the process" by which a president/vice president are chosen if the Electoral College vote is not accepted by BOTH houses of Congress.

We know in advance that (even in the face of objections) the House will vote to accept those results.

What we DON'T know is what could happen in the Senate if objections are made by Republican Senators.
There are only two possible options:
1. The Senate votes to accept the electors (likely, but not guaranteed);
2. The Senate votes to reject the electors (unlikely, but still possible).

If the Senate was to vote to reject, then the actual outcome -- the vote for president/vice president -- will be tossed into the House and Senate, respectively.

The House votes by state delegations, with each delegation having 1 vote (50 votes total). But there are 27 Republican delegations. Would they vote for biden?

And stop the delusions about "it's not about Trump winning".
It IS about Mr. Trump winning.
Preserving the credibility of elections to come -- well, that's icing on the cake.

[HoustonSam]

You clearly don't understand (or haven't thought through) "the process" by which a president/vice president are chosen if the Electoral College vote is not accepted by BOTH houses of Congress.

We know in advance that (even in the face of objections) the House will vote to accept those results.

What we DON'T know is what could happen in the Senate if objections are made by Republican Senators.
There are only two possible options:
1. The Senate votes to accept the electors (likely, but not guaranteed);
2. The Senate votes to reject the electors (unlikely, but still possible).

If the Senate was to vote to reject, then the actual outcome -- the vote for president/vice president -- will be tossed into the House and Senate, respectively.

The House votes by state delegations, with each delegation having 1 vote (50 votes total). But there are 27 Republican delegations. Would they vote for biden?

And stop the delusions about "it's not about Trump winning".
It IS about Mr. Trump winning.
Preserving the credibility of elections to come -- well, that's icing on the cake.

I'm afraid @Fishrrman it's you who have not thought this through.  Your item 2 above regarding the Senate will not occur unless people like Romney, Murkowski, Cornyn, McConnell and a lot of others are convinced to vote against accepting the contentious EVs.  As you say yourself, that's unlikely.  What might make it *more* likely?  How about a Congressional audit?

And I'm afraid you have icing and cake confused.  Tactically speaking, the aforementioned RINOs simply will not, ever, reject EVs *just to support Trump*; they hate him too much for that.  They might reject EVs to support credible elections.  But more importantly, Trump is a temporary phenomenon with an expiration date, while elections are not.  If Trump somehow miraculously comes out of this on top and remains in office for four more years, but election law remains the quagmire it is today, we simply re-play all of this nonsense again next time.  If election law actually is cleaned up and made effective then we make it much harder for the Ds to run the same scam again, with or without a Trump second term.  They'll try something else, but this one will be far less likely to succeed.

If you really prefer a suicide charge trying capture pure icing with no cake, that's your business and no cause for me to get riled up.  Clearly we agree on what's best for the country, if not on how to achieve it.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Sen. Cruz Outlines Challenge to Electoral College
Jan 3, 2021


https://rumble.com/embed/v9s5v7/?pub=4

[Fishrrman]

Houston Sam wrote:
"And I'm afraid you have icing and cake confused.  Tactically speaking, the aforementioned RINOs simply will not, ever, reject EVs *just to support Trump*; they hate him too much for that."

No.
There needs to be a vote (both in the House AND in the Senate).
This puts every Republican "onto the record".

Even if Mr. Trump loses, there STILL needs to be "a vote".

The proposal Cruz has presented gives them the way to AVOID the vote and to AVOID "the record".
Not only that, it's a guaranteed pathway to losing.
At least with a vote, lightning might still strike.

Remember when Reagan was asked about his expectations regarding the cold war?
His reply was simple:
"We win. They lose".

No vote = certain loss.
You can't win if you won't fight.