Arizona State Rep. Mark Finchem Calls for the 2020 Election Results to be Decertified Based on the P

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Congratulations, this response will do a lot for your credibility here.

 

Your opinion of my credibility is worth a bucket of warm piss.

I've gone on record on this thread also wanting prosecutions.  Were I a defense attorney and the state legislature failed to de-certify I would certainly argue that my client had simply participated in the process which the state legislature certified; and that the state legislature had confirmed the fitness of the process, and my client's participation, by leaving that certification in force.

So if you're serious about wanting prosecutions, you might want to think through to what would make for an effective prosecution.  A de-certified election would make for a much more powerful prosecutorial case than a certified election.

I guess. More powerful would be concrete evidence of actual wrongdoing. not just a bunch of forums who "get their spidey sense tingly" because of some discrepancies.

[HoustonSam]

Your opinion of my credibility is worth a bucket of warm piss.

You don't know when to quit digging, do you?  I'm not talking about my opinion of your credibility.

I guess. More powerful would be concrete evidence of actual wrongdoing. not just a bunch of forums who "get their spidey sense tingly" because of some discrepancies.

A de-certified election would be concrete evidence of actual wrongdoing.  The sort of prosecution you claim to want would actually be based on "a bunch of forums who 'get their spidey sense tingly' because of some discrepancies."

[HikerGuy83]

Where's the provision in the Constitution to decertify an election? Sheesh, I thought liberals were dumb...

1. I don't think there is any.

2. You are correct....except they are not liberals (liberals are great people).  I think you are referencing left wingers....there is a huge difference.

[Cyber Liberty]

It'd basically be masturbation then? Nice to know.

If it's true, i'd want prosecutions. State level office can prosecute.

I think if you lived in AZ and had your vote cancelled by fraud, you might have a different opinion.

[Elderberry]

I wonder how many states show a remedy of Quo Warranto, like Michigan does.

MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW (EXCERPT)
Act 116 of 1954


168.861 Fraudulent or illegal voting, or tampering with ballots or ballot boxes; remedy by quo warranto.

Sec. 861.
   For fraudulent or illegal voting, or tampering with the ballots or ballot boxes before a recount by the board of county canvassers, the remedy by quo warranto shall remain in full force, together with any other remedies now existing.

[roamer_1]

I hope that you get that I completely agree with you.

I am getting ready to start a thread on tracking efforts to do that in Arizona.

What I don't go for is pushing bleating words like steal, corrupt, illegal, and decertification.  They sounds more like battle cries and I, for one, am sick and tired of the ugly (and frankly stupid) state of politics. 

I kinda get all that, though 'steal, corrupt, and illegal seem to be perfectly usable words when illegal or disqualified ballots exceed the win margin by several times...  It may not seem as polite as you like, but that is picking nits... totally legit. Decertification... well on that I probably agree, with the exception of state offices and senate/congressional offices... I raised the question as to whether that is legit or not.

But I get the tone thing. Try standing and defending Conservatism against all comers - You won't be popular. Even here. I have pissed off real good friends... maybe permanently, because I would not move.

Even the dialogue on this board smacks of some kind of "cancel" if you don't agree with their particular POV (and that does not even mean you had a different one.....you might not have one at all....but  that is still wrong.....Hitler would be proud).

Yea, the 'team play' is hard to get over. the rah, rah thing... Especially when you are trying to deconstruct something committed by 'our side' of things. I miss FR back in the day when any subject could be torn to pieces and the parts identified without the need to align with the true believers.

It is what it is... And it is better here than about anywhere... But I long ago walked off from politics as a functional means. Don't hardly see the news except what I get by osmosis here. Folks get bent up over the weirdest things, and it just ain't worth the effort to care about it.

So I will stand for none of it, and focus on the philosophy. I will defend Conservatism. I will not defend politics.

[roamer_1]

I'm sure you know just as well as the rest of us that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, and the people, all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government.  If the legislature of AZ decides that it no longer has confidence in the result it previously certified and sent to the joint session, as the sole determiner of election procedure in AZ it has all authority to say so by de-certifying.

Even if every state that certified D EVs chose to de-certify, Biden would remain at the Resolute desk; one can reasonably argue that de-certifying would be merely symbolic, with no real impact.  AZ, PA, GA, and other states simply screwed up by certifying results that came from procedures that are not trustworthy.  Although moot in terms of immediate impact, de-certifying would say clearly that existing electoral procedures are unacceptable.  If the AZ legislature chose to de-certify, they would really have no choice but to reform their election laws.

I take no position on whether or not a proposed de-cert would stand a chance in the AZ legislature.  In a sense de-cert would be an admission of failure by the state legislature, an admission it had allowed untrustworthy procedures to remain in effect.  For that reason alone the proposal might be a non-starter.

I will stand in mild disagreement with you @HoustonSam , on the federal certification matter. I think it is designed to be decisive. I think the founders did not want a pissing match. I think they wanted a very decisive end - There is a time for challenging the vote, and the certification, but that is a nearly impossible task in the time allotted. There is further time to challenge the vote at the state, 18 months, I believe, but that does not effect the certification, as the time to challenge that has long ago come and gone.

So I believe decertification to be unconstitutional - The state assigned electors, those electors were received,  and at that precise moment, the state assigned its powers to those electors, certified those electors as duly assigned representatives, and handed off their duty to the federal system. Within the federal system the physical vote of the electors is cast - Different system.

As I have said before, there may be value in decertification in the lower offices - Certainly in the state offices, and perhaps in the case of US Senate and House (I don't know). For those offices decertification may hold some value - I have asked that question - but in the matter of the president and vice president, that ship has sailed.

[HoustonSam]

I will stand in mild disagreement with you @HoustonSam , on the federal certification matter. I think it is designed to be decisive. I think the founders did not want a pissing match. I think they wanted a very decisive end - There is a time for challenging the vote, and the certification, but that is a nearly impossible task in the time allotted. There is further time to challenge the vote at the state, 18 months, I believe, but that does not effect the certification, as the time to challenge that has long ago come and gone.

So I believe decertification to be unconstitutional - The state assigned electors, those electors were received,  and at that precise moment, the state assigned its powers to those electors, certified those electors as duly assigned representatives, and handed off their duty to the federal system. Within the federal system the physical vote of the electors is cast - Different system.

As I have said before, there may be value in decertification in the lower offices - Certainly in the state offices, and perhaps in the case of US Senate and House (I don't know). For those offices decertification may hold some value - I have asked that question - but in the matter of the president and vice president, that ship has sailed.

Your position is certainly reasonable my friend @roamer_1 .  Action by AZ or even by a majority of states could not actually remove Biden from office - that ship has indeed sailed, and crossed beyond the horizon, due in large part to the legislatures of several states being asleep at the switch regarding how votes are actually collected and counted.  So as you and I have agreed here before, the state legislatures really have only themselves to blame, and I'm not sure many of them will admit that any blame is actually coming their way, particularly if it raises questions about their own most recent election victories.

I'm advocating de-certification - perhaps a resolution rather than an act - as a formal statement that the result was not trustworthy, to drive reform action and to bolster any prosecutions by making clear that actual harm was done.  And while a Federal Court might rule de-certification unconstitutional, personally I would find that ruling spurious, again for reasons on which you and I have previously agreed here - the state legislature is the sole arbiter of election procedure in the state.  And since de-cert would be a statement rather than an act, I don't see what the meaning would be of declaring it unconstitutional.

Of course we're merely disagreeing on how, not on what.  I think we're both convinced by the AZ audit report that actual crime led to actual harm, and that prosecutions and reform are both needed.

[Cyber Liberty]

@HoustonSam

I'm advocating de-certification - perhaps a resolution rather than an act - as a formal statement that the result was not trustworthy, to drive reform action and to bolster any prosecutions by making clear that actual harm was done.

Two important things should soon follow.  I would expect the pressure would be ramped up on Legislators and Governors to pass real election reform, and perhaps we can see an end to the "Automatic Certifications" that have been going on since forever.  People in charge are encouraged to just look the other way when something stinks now, and this might change that entire POV.

[HoustonSam]

@HoustonSam

Two important things should soon follow.  I would expect the pressure would be ramped up on Legislators and Governors to pass real election reform, and perhaps we can see an end to the "Automatic Certifications" that have been going on since forever.  People in charge are encouraged to just look the other way when something stinks now, and this might change that entire POV.

If R participants, and those who select them, come with backbone and insist on credible results they can put a stop to that habit already.  Maybe these events will fire up enough Rs to achieve that.

[HikerGuy83]

Good luck with that.  A word of advice:  Don't rubbish what people are doing, like you have done so far with the Audit, every step of the way.  If folks are willing to put up with that they'd all have subscriptions to the Arizona Republic, too.

I don't recall rubbishing anything.

I have pointed out where I think certain language is not helpful and why.

It seems you are the ones prone to attack those who might not have bought off on your POV.

I don't have an "opposing" point of view.

I have one that is different and in many cases they are not very strong.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't recall rubbishing anything.
 
I have pointed out where I think certain language is not helpful and why.

It seems you are the ones prone to attack those who might not have bought off on your POV.

I don't have an "opposing" point of view.

I have one that is different and in many cases they are not very strong.

Whatever, it's a free speech forum and I look forward to seeing that thread.

[roamer_1]

As per the usual @HoustonSam , we are close enough together to be talking across a small wrought iron table with a couple Mason jars full of sweet tea.

Your position is certainly reasonable my friend @roamer_1 .  Action by AZ or even by a majority of states could not actually remove Biden from office - that ship has indeed sailed, and crossed beyond the horizon, due in large part to the legislatures of several states being asleep at the switch regarding how votes are actually collected and counted.  So as you and I have agreed here before, the state legislatures really have only themselves to blame, and I'm not sure many of them will admit that any blame is actually coming their way, particularly if it raises questions about their own most recent election victories.

Precisely right, and what will be done with the emphasized part is the interesting bit.

I'm advocating de-certification - perhaps a resolution rather than an act - as a formal statement that the result was not trustworthy, to drive reform action and to bolster any prosecutions by making clear that actual harm was done.  And while a Federal Court might rule de-certification unconstitutional, personally I would find that ruling spurious, again for reasons on which you and I have previously agreed here - the state legislature is the sole arbiter of election procedure in the state.  And since de-cert would be a statement rather than an act, I don't see what the meaning would be of declaring it unconstitutional.

This is the fun part - I am not exactly against an act to decertify... It is within the 18 month window - or was begun and the official investigation started (by the call to audit) within that time...

But I will again repeat with emphasis, that it is the down-ticket that could yet produce fruit from that act. Does that act throw the election of US Senators and Congressmen by those same illegal votes? Can that cause a recall? And how far down-ticket does the calumny extend, and can all of that be overturned?

And what remedy? A recall and a mulligan election? I dunno. But all that is where the traction is.

At least one would expect a tightening of election code, and an insistence on transparent auditing in the future... and that is sure to be a gain wrt election integrity, which should concern everyone, Democrat, Republican or otherwise...

Of course we're merely disagreeing on how, not on what.  I think we're both convinced by the AZ audit report that actual crime led to actual harm, and that prosecutions and reform are both needed.

That's right. At this point it seems to be a bare fact. 

[roamer_1]

@HoustonSam

Two important things should soon follow.  I would expect the pressure would be ramped up on Legislators and Governors to pass real election reform, and perhaps we can see an end to the "Automatic Certifications" that have been going on since forever.  People in charge are encouraged to just look the other way when something stinks now, and this might change that entire POV.

*FACTS*

[HoustonSam]

But I will again repeat with emphasis, that it is the down-ticket that could yet produce fruit from that act. Does that act throw the election of US Senators and Congressmen by those same illegal votes? Can that cause a recall? And how far down-ticket does the calumny extend, and can all of that be overturned?

Very fair questions.  Even as I advocate for de-cert, I have to admit it might be a can of worms we would regret opening. Were I arguing on behalf of the Ds I would cherry pick an auditing state with a majority of recently-elected R office holders and insist that de-cert applied to *all* election results, and that *state* office holders could be subject to removal from office depending on the outcome.

I hope the Rs would say "bring it on, we just want credible results", but I'm really not sure they would.

[roamer_1]

Very fair questions.  Even as I advocate for de-cert, I have to admit it might be a can of worms we would regret opening. Were I arguing on behalf of the Ds I would cherry pick an auditing state with a majority of recently-elected R office holders and insist that de-cert applied to *all* election results, and that *state* office holders could be subject to removal from office depending on the outcome.

I hope the Rs would say "bring it on, we just want credible results", but I'm really not sure they would.

I for one would be fine with that in a show-up-in-person, purple-finger sorta way... 

[HoustonSam]

I for one would be fine with that in a show-up-in-person, purple-finger sorta way... 

You and me both.  If the Ds want to organize car pools to bring all theirs to the polls, let them do so; it would still be in person and with a purple finger immediately afterward.  And no one would have to pay for any of those "I Voted" decals they typically give out.

[HikerGuy83]

I for one would be fine with that in a show-up-in-person, purple-finger sorta way... 

Dems won't like it.

They' ll have to dig up 10% of their voting constituency to get them to the polls.

[roamer_1]

Dems won't like it.

They' ll have to dig up 10% of their voting constituency to get them to the polls.

You ain't telling me nothing... my grandparents in Chicago started voting Democrat after they died... I haven't spoken with em since!   

[HikerGuy83]

Interesting Article:

You only get three freebees at the site.

It's a ramped up killshot aimed at the "stop the steal crow" and an example of the garbage that is peppering the net.

https://newrepublic.com/article/163796/media-arizona-audit-bidens-victory

In a crowded field, the months-long “audit” of the presidential votes in Arizona’s largest county may be the dumbest political story of 2021. The extent to which the word audit applies to the zany shenanigans that Arizona has endured this year is a matter of debate. A better term might be a transparent sham, undertaken by bad-faith actors promulgating easily disprovable lies about the legitimacy of the presidential election. The firm conducting the audit was literally named “Cyber Ninjas”—a detail so absurd it essentially serves as a punchline that doesn’t need a setup. The audit itself was silly, transparently partisan, and sinister, insofar as it didn’t really matter that it was obviously bogus: The whole point was to keep alive the myth that the 2020 election had been stolen from Donald Trump.

In the end, the Cyber Ninjas couldn’t pull it off. Their long-awaited report, released late last week, acknowledged that Joe Biden did, in fact, win Maricopa County. Not only that, he won it by a slightly larger margin than previously thought. If the audit was meant to prove the inherent illegitimacy of the 2020 election, it backfired. And for many in the press, it was a moment to spike the football. CNN’s John King wryly observed that it was a “death blow” to Trump’s “fraud fantasy.” Many outlets reported that it “confirmed” Joe Biden’s victory, as if such a thing were in doubt to begin with. Even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board stepped in to suggest that enough is enough, asking, “When are Republicans going to quit playing this game?”

These reactions—whether jaded, gleeful, or exhausted—imply that there is some endpoint for Republican claims of fraud: that one day, the GOP will wake up and realize that Joe Biden really did win the election. There is no reason to believe that is the case. Indeed, reaction from the right has been nonplussed: Donald Trump is still claiming victory, while outlets on the right have focused on other sensational and unsupported claims, particularly that tens of thousands of “illegal” ballots were cast, even though election experts have widely disputed these conclusions. Coverage of the audit itself suggests that many news outlets still haven’t realized how to cover Republican efforts to undermine elections.

[Hoodat]

Interesting Article:

You only get three freebees at the site.

It's a ramped up killshot aimed at the "stop the steal crow" and an example of the garbage that is peppering the net.

https://newrepublic.com/article/163796/media-arizona-audit-bidens-victory

In a crowded field, the months-long “audit” of the presidential votes in Arizona’s largest county may be the dumbest political story of 2021. The extent to which the word audit applies to the zany shenanigans that Arizona has endured this year is a matter of debate. A better term might be a transparent sham, undertaken by bad-faith actors promulgating easily disprovable lies about the legitimacy of the presidential election. The firm conducting the audit was literally named “Cyber Ninjas”—a detail so absurd it essentially serves as a punchline that doesn’t need a setup. The audit itself was silly, transparently partisan, and sinister, insofar as it didn’t really matter that it was obviously bogus: The whole point was to keep alive the myth that the 2020 election had been stolen from Donald Trump.

In the end, the Cyber Ninjas couldn’t pull it off. Their long-awaited report, released late last week, acknowledged that Joe Biden did, in fact, win Maricopa County. Not only that, he won it by a slightly larger margin than previously thought. If the audit was meant to prove the inherent illegitimacy of the 2020 election, it backfired. And for many in the press, it was a moment to spike the football. CNN’s John King wryly observed that it was a “death blow” to Trump’s “fraud fantasy.” Many outlets reported that it “confirmed” Joe Biden’s victory, as if such a thing were in doubt to begin with. Even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board stepped in to suggest that enough is enough, asking, “When are Republicans going to quit playing this game?”

These reactions—whether jaded, gleeful, or exhausted—imply that there is some endpoint for Republican claims of fraud: that one day, the GOP will wake up and realize that Joe Biden really did win the election. There is no reason to believe that is the case. Indeed, reaction from the right has been nonplussed: Donald Trump is still claiming victory, while outlets on the right have focused on other sensational and unsupported claims, particularly that tens of thousands of “illegal” ballots were cast, even though election experts have widely disputed these conclusions. Coverage of the audit itself suggests that many news outlets still haven’t realized how to cover Republican efforts to undermine elections.

Looks just like something a Democrat troll would post.

[skeeter]

Looks just like something a Democrat troll would post.

Maybe one day they'll accept that some people are still more inclined to believe their lying eyes instead of taking the word of a media that proven time after time it is ill disposed towards the truth. No matter how many lying rags they thrust in front of us.

[HikerGuy83]

Looks just like something a Democrat troll would post.

Does being a moron come to you naturally ?

Or do you practice at it. 

Did you not see where I called it garbage.

It's an example of what is all over the net.  IOW: whoever it is that is supposed to be posting the truth isn't getting it out there.....

And spare me the censorship meme.

The right (my side) simply does not have the same organized media apparutus that the left has.

And it is hurting us.

[HikerGuy83]

Maybe one day they'll accept that some people are still more inclined to believe their lying eyes instead of taking the word of a media that proven time after time it is ill disposed towards the truth. No matter how many lying rags they thrust in front of us.

Nobody thrust anything in front of you.

Someone is highliting the garbage that is out there.

They should have an I.Q. test to get on this board.

[Cyber Liberty]

Lighten up.  An Admin agrees the article you linked should be posted...we are not an echo chamber.