THE HEROES OF JAN 6
ALL THE TALK ABOUT J6 IS WHAT HAPPENED IN FRONT OF THE CAPITOL FROM 12:53 TO THE COLUMBUS DOOR OPENING AT 2:39–
The opening of the doors for the mob was coincidental, or timed, with the full recess of the joint session, which happened at 2:29PM.
January 6, 2021 on page H85, second column, the following appeared:: The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, pursuant to clause 12(b) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair. There was no objection. Accordingly (at 2 o’clock and 29 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess.” From the J6 Congressional Record
There is the ‘coincidence,’ or planned opening of the Columbus Security doors at 2:39PM exactly 10 minutes after the recess was called. Chaos and confusion of the legislators ensued, anger . . . Read Ted Cruz’s account copied in my ‘Timeline of J6’ blog.
This was even more a disruption because the ending debates and final vote on Arizona’s Objections didn’t happen until after the entire congress was detrimentally effected by the disruption, reconvening at 9:02PM and the formal vote taken at about 11PM.
Don’t tell me the vote wasn’t influenced by shock, rage, and rumors of a Trump Insurrection spread by Democrats! And, of the remaining 5 states who also filed Objections, only Pennsylvania held onto its senatorial cosigner.
PART I
The Arizona House Objection
Paul Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Vice President, I, Paul Gosar from Arizona, rise for myself and 60 of my colleagues to object to the counting of the electoral ballots from Arizona.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Senator?
Mr. GOSAR. Yes, it is.
Senator CRUZ. It is.
The VICE PRESIDENT. An objection presented in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator complies with the law, chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code.
The Clerk will report the objection.
The Clerk read the objection as follows:
Objection to Counting the Electoral Votes of the State of Arizona
We, a Member of the House of Representatives and a United States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Arizona on the ground that they were not,under all of the known circumstances, regularly given. Paul Gosar,Representative, State of Arizona.
Ted Cruz,Senator, State of Texas.
Senators
Mike Braun, John Kennedy, Ron Johnson, Steve Daines, James Lankford, Bill Hagerty, Marsha Blackburn.
Members of Congress
Mo Brooks AL-5, Andy Biggs AZ-5, Jim Jordan OH-4, Madison Cawthorn NC-11, Scott Perry PA-10, Mike Kelly PA-16, Clay Higgins LA-3, John W. Rose TN-6, Bill Posey FL-8, Jeff Duncan SC-3, Brian Babin TX-36, Louie Gohmert TX-1, Brian J. Mast FL-18, Warren Davidson OH-8, Andy Harris MD-1, Steven Palazzo MS-4, Doug Lamborn CO-5, Kat Cammack FL-3. Tracey Mann KS-1, Bob Good VA-5, Adrian Smith NE-3, Billy Long MO-7, Jack Bergman MI-1, Michael Cloud TX-27, Rick Crawford AR-1, Roger Williams TX-25, Bob Gibbs OH-7, Russ Fulcher ID-1, Ted Budd NC-13, Barry Moore AL-2, Lee Zeldin NY-1, Jake LaTurner KS-2, David Rouzer NC-7, Jason Smith MO-8, Lauren Boebert CO-3, Chuck Fleischmann TN-3, Tim Burchett TN-2, Chris Jacobs NY-27. Andrew S. Clyde GA-9, Lance Gooden TX-5, Diana Harshbarger TN-1, Mary E. Miller IL-15, Mark E. Green TN-7, Ron Estes KS-4, Neal Dunn FL-2, Ronny Jackson TX-13, Ralph Norman SC-5,Joe Wilson SC-2, Vicky Hartzler MO-4, Scott DesJarlais TN-4, Marjorie Taylor Greene GA-14, Doug LaMalfa CA-1, Jeff Van Drew NJ-2, Ben Cline VA-6, Michael D. Rogers AL-3, Markwayne Mullin OK-2, Pat Fallon TX-4, Randy K. Weber TX-14.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama.
Madam Speaker, for years, Democrats and their media allies deceived America about Trump-Russian collusion and the extent of foreign interference in the 2016 elections. Yet, in 2020, Democrats promoted massive foreign interference in American elections by helping illegal aliens and other noncitizens vote in American elections, thereby canceling the votes of and stealing elections from American citizens.
Want evidence?
Exhibit A. In 1993, Democrats rammed through Congress the National Voter Registration Act, making it illegal—illegal—to require proof of citizenship that prevents illegal aliens and noncitizens from registering to vote.
Why did Democrats do that? Simple. To steal elections, of course.
Exhibit B. How bad is the noncitizen voting problem? In 2005, Democrat President Jimmy Carter’s Commission on Federal Election Reform warned that ‘‘noncitizens have registered to vote in several recent elections’’ and recommended that ‘‘all States should use their best efforts to obtain proof of citizenship before registering voters.’’
Exhibit C. A June 2005 General Accountability Office report discovered that up to 3 percent of people on voter registration lists are not U.S. citizens.
Exhibit D. In 2008, Electoral Studies surveyed 339 noncitizens. Eight percent admitted voting in American elections. As an aside, I have seen higher percentages in other studies.
Exhibit E. The 2010 Census counted 11 million illegal aliens in America.
Exhibit F. A 2018 Yale study estimated as many as 22 million illegal
aliens in America.
Exhibit G. The math means between 880,000 and 1.72 million illegal aliens illegally voted in the 2020 elections.
Exhibit H. In 2014, Old Dominion University and George Mason University professors surveyed noncitizens and illegal aliens and found they vote Democrat roughly 80 percent of the time.
Exhibit I. The math is again straightforward. The 60 percent Biden advantage times the illegal alien voting number means Joe Biden gained roughly 1,032,000 votes from illegal alien voting. That is the high number.
Exhibit J. While no one knows for sure how massive the illegal alien voting bloc is, we do know Joe Biden and his campaign believed it large enough and critical enough to winning the Presidential race that, at the October 22 Presidential debate, Joe Biden publicly solicited the illegal alien bloc vote by promising: ‘‘Within 100 days, I am going to send to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people.’’
Ladies and gentlemen, Madam Speaker, that is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for illegal aliens. Joe Biden knew exactly what he was doing by seeking the illegal alien bloc vote. After all, on May 11, 1993, then Senator Joe Biden voted for the National Voter Registration Act, which makes it illegal to require proof of citizenship from illegal aliens and other non-citizens when they seek to register to vote.
Madam Speaker, the evidence is compelling and irrefutable. Noncitizens overwhelmingly voted for Joe Biden in exchange for the promised amnesty and citizenship and in so doing helped steal the election from Donald Trump, Republican candidates, and American citizens across America.
Madam Speaker, in my judgment, if only lawful votes cast by eligible American citizens are counted, Joe Biden lost and President Trump won the electoral college.
As such, it is my constitutional duty to promote honest and accurate elections by rejecting electoral college vote submissions from States whose electoral systems are so badly flawed as to render their vote submissions unreliable, untrustworthy, and worthy of acceptance.
Steve Scalise
They did an end-run around the Constitution in every State that Republicans will object to today. Every single one. It was a pattern. It was their template. They did it in Arizona. They did it in Georgia. They did it in Michigan. They did it in Pennsylvania. They did it in Nevada. They did it in Wisconsin. Yet, some of our Members say: Don’t worry about it. We shouldn’t do anything. Just let it go. It was just six States who violated the Constitution.
Stefanik
In Michigan, signed affidavits document numerous unconstitutional irregularities: Officials physically blocking the legal right of poll watchers to observe vote counts, the illegal counting of late ballots, and hand-stamping ballots with the previous day’s date. My North Country constituents and the American people cherish the Constitution. They know, according to the Constitution, elected officials closest to the people in State legislatures have the power of the pen to write election law, not unelected bureaucrats, judges, Governors, or secretaries of state. To the tens of thousands of constituents who have reached out to me, thank you. Please know that I am listening and I hear you, both those who agree and those who disagree. Our Constitutional Republic will endure this tragic day because the Founding Fathers understood Congress and the American people would face unprecedented and historic challenges by debating them on this very floor. I believe that the most precious foundation and the covenant of our Republic is the right to vote, and the faith in the sanctity of our Nation’s free and fair elections. We must work together in this House to rebuild that faith so that all our elections are free, fair, secure, safe and, most importantly, that they are according to the United States Constitution.
Marjorie Taylor Greene
The VICE PRESIDENT. For what reason does the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. GREENE) rise? Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. President, I, along with 70 of my Republican colleagues, object to the counting of the electoral votes for the State of Michigan on the grounds that the error rate exceeds the FEC rate allowed at 0.0008 percent, and that the people who signed affidavits at risk of perjury, their voices have not been heard in a court of law.
Gaetz’s Objection:
“In 2016, Democrats found out that they couldn’t beat Donald Trump at the ballot box with voters who actually show up, so they turned to impeachment and the witness box. And when that failed, they ran to the mailbox, where this election saw an unprecedented amount of votes that could not be authenticated with true ID, with true signature match, and with true confidence for the American people.
Our Article III courts have failed by not holding evidentiary hearings to weigh the evidence. We should not join in that failure. We should vindicate the rights of States. We should vindicate the subpoenas in Arizona that have been issued to get a hold of these voting machines, and we should reject these electors.”
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I join the objection to counting votes of electors from my home State of Arizona, as well as Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada, because election integrity is the heart of our American constitutional republic?
In a representative form of government, we must be able to trust that our elections accurately represent the will of the American voter. This is the appropriate forum anticipated and provided for by our Founders to debate whether this election complied with the Constitution that we have all sworn to protect.
Every particular of the Constitution is to be protected, including Article II, Section 1. The debate as to the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election has been suppressed by the left and its propagandists in the media until today.
State legislatures are required to determine the manner in which electors are chosen. Arizona names its electors on the general election ballot and identifies what candidate those electors are required to vote for should that candidate obtain the majority of votes in the general election.
As part of the manner for determining electors, Arizona also establishes deadlines for voter registration. The deadline has been in place for 30 years.
{time} 1345
This year, that voter registration deadline was October 5. Early voting commenced 2 days later. Five days before the deadline, a group filed a lawsuit demanding that Arizona election officials not enforce the deadline.
The Federal District Court decided that since other States have a deadline later than Arizona's and some even allow for registration when voting, that Arizona's new deadline would be a time he chose, not the legislature's timeline.
The appellate court effectively overturned the lower court ruling and noted that the Arizona deadline established by the State legislature was sound and appropriate and complied with the Constitution. But the appellate court merely shortened the extension, the bypassing of the deadline to 10 days.
The appellate court, without legal justification, also decided that everyone who registered after the legal deadline, but before the deadline created by judicial fiat, could still vote.
Note that the Arizona legislature was no longer in control of determining the manner of appointing Presidential electors because the court had set a new deadline, even though the appellate court found the legislature's deadline was constitutionally sound.
During that window, more than 32,000 voters registered in Maricopa County alone. Here are copies of those voter registration records. In going around the deadline set by the legislature, the court ignored the Arizona legislature's obligation and right to direct the manner of choosing Presidential electors as set forth in Article II, Section 1.
As a consequence of that judicial usurpation, more than 32,000 people were allowed to unlawfully cast ballots in Arizona's Presidential election in 2020.
The Arizona legislature seeks an independent audit of the election. The Governor refuses now to call them into a special session. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has refused to comply with legislative subpoenas. In Arizona, the people who control the evidence related to the election have done everything possible to prevent an independent audit directed by the legislature.
Arizonans have used the limited amount of records available to investigate the 2020 Presidential election. Of a limited sample of 1,000 addresses of voters, they found 539 voters did not live at the addresses on the voter rolls. Here is a stack of 1,000 declaration of affidavits supporting that.
I object to counting the votes of Arizona electors because the Federal courts went around the legislatively constructed mechanism for choosing Arizona's Presidential electors, allowing tens of thousands of voters to unlawfully cast votes. The court usurped a key component of the Arizona legislature's manner of selecting Presidential electors, thus violating Article II, Section 1. The legislature is being obstructed in its efforts. And what little evidence we have and what little information we have has produced this kind of evidence, which indicates a significant problem with the integrity of the Presidential election.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my written comments, together with the voter registration records that reflect the 32,000 registrations permitted in contravention of State law; letters and resolutions from Arizona legislators pertaining to the count of votes from electors; along with approximately 1,000 affidavits and declarations pertaining to potential voter fraud in Arizona in the 2020 Presidential election; and the statement of Congressman Randy Weber of Texas.
December 31, 2020.
Dear Vice President Pence: As the Chairwoman of the Arizona House Elections Committee, I write to you with upmost urgency to communicate to you several occurrences that thwart our ability as legislators to investigate legitimate and concerning allegations of election fraud in the most recent general election. On December 14, 2020, Arizona sent an alternate slate of electors, along with a resolution from 21 current and 8 newly elected legislators asking you to refrain from accepting the Biden electors until we could adequately investigate these claims of fraud.
Soon after the election, I requested an Elections Committee discovery hearing in order to use subpoena power to acquire the voting machines and ballots in order to do a comprehensive and forensic audit. I was told that it was not a good idea and was denied the ability. I continued to request the hearing with the Speaker of the House, asked publicly, and tried every avenue to no avail. A full month later on December 9th, the Senate President authorized a hearing via the Judiciary committee, and that did result in subpoenas to the Maricopa County Supervisors (who oversee the elections process) that have yet, as of the writing of this letter, been complied with.
Court cases have been dismissed due to not having evidence, however our efforts to do an audit to obtain such evidence have been suppressed. We held a hearing on 11/30/2020 with Rudy Giuliani to at least hear testimony from citizens who experienced irregularities, along with subject matter experts who reported severe irregularities and probable tampering with the machine apparatus. On 11/30/2020, a group of Arizona citizens reported publicly that they had uncovered with great confidence a minimum estimation of 160,000 fraudulent voters, based on over 1000 declarations/affidavits collected. This supports an earlier document submitted to the Attorney General and would largely impact the outcome of the election. We have experienced obstruction at every turn. For your reference, I have itemized, in Exhibit A, many of the various ways we have been stopped from investigating claims of fraud and gross irregularities. It is my hope that you will see that the Arizona Presidential election is still in dispute and unresolved. We call on you to take this into consideration as you perform your duties on January 6th, and not accept the electors until we have resolution to these matters.
With utmost respect,
Kelly J. Townsend, Senator-Elect.
Exhibit A
1. Requests from the House Elections Chairwoman (myself)
and the House Federal Relations Chairman (Mark Finchem) to
hold an evidentiary hearing were repeatedly denied and have
yet to be honored. Multiple Chairmen of various committees
requested a hearing in order to investigate claims, to no
avail. We were forced to hold an unofficial hearing on
November 30th where many came forward with very concerning
evidence and claims.
2. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was not held
until 41 days after the election on 12/14/2020, the same day
as the Electors were to cast their votes. This delay rendered
the hearing of little effect regarding having confidence in
the correct votes cast. The Chairman thus issued a subpoena
for the equipment and ballots, but the Maricopa Board of
Supervisors has countersued and refuse to comply. They will
not release any machine or ballot info, even though within
the RFP for the Dominion machines, it is stated that their
key features are their ability to conduct hand counts,
perform risk limiting audits, and publish ballot images and
adjudication records with markings on a
[[Page H81]]
public website, calling it their open data initiative. Now
that they are being asked for it, they are refusing to make
it available, citing voter confidentiality. There is no voter
information contained in the machine or on a ballot, however,
so that reasoning is insufficient. Their inaction and
nonfeasance prevent us from proper discovery.
3. I, along with several others, requested the Governor to
call us in for special session to be able to deal with the
issue. It is our understanding that we cannot enforce the
subpoena for equipment and ballots unless we are in session.
His ongoing unwillingness to call us into session to address
these issues had kept us from adequate discovery. On 12/02/
2020, Governor Doug Ducey was asked by the media if he was
going to honor the Legislator's request for a special
session. He proceeded to incorrectly name Monday January 13th
as our first day back in regular session. In response, the
reporter asked, ``So you see no need for a special session to
look at any of these issues or the issue of Presidential
electors...,'' to which the Governor interrupted and said,
``I'll see the Legislature in January.''
4. The House leadership attempted to deter Representative
Bret Roberts from sending a letter to Attorney General
Brnovich and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
regarding the accurate performance of a hand count based on
the statutory requirement to do so by precinct, versus vote
center. By doing a hand count based on voting centers, it
renders it impossible to tell if there was a rogue precinct
involved in fraud. Nevertheless, Rep. Robert's efforts to
enforce statute were thwarted by House leadership.
5. One week prior to the Electors voting, on December 7th,
the House and Senate leadership closed the buildings in the
name of COVID-19, preventing any in-person hearings or work
to be performed. This greatly hindered our ability to push
for discovery regarding election integrity during the last
days before the Elector's votes were cast.
6. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors held a closed
meeting on 11/20/2020 in order to certify the election
results, where the public was not allowed to participate and
ask questions. Prior to that meeting, on 12/08/2020, Merissa
Hamilton (a data integrity expert) delivered to the Attorney
General a statistically significant listing of deceased
voters that received a ballot and those deceased who actually
returned a ballot. At the aforementioned meeting, the
Maricopa County Elections Director Ray Valenzuela stated that
the list of deceased voters casting a ballot was mere
folklore and dismissed it as a nonissue. This accusation is
still pending an investigation.
7. After submitting a public records request for the
Federal only voters who cast a ballot in the 2020 General
election, I was told by a staff member that the Elections
Director was ``vetting the list'' before he gave it to me. I
did not request a cleaned-up list of voters, but the list in
its entirety. This diminished my confidence in that list,
that I have a true representation of persons who cast a
ballot that cannot establish their identity or citizenship.
8. Arizona State House leadership prevented Legislators
from issuing press releases having to do with the election
that did not conform to their own opinion. This diminished
our ability to communicate to the public our concerns about
how the election and post procedures were being handled.
9. On 12/01/2020, I requested the Attorney General's
Elections Integrity office to investigate the claims made at
the November 30th Giuliani hearing and provided them the
link. I was told that none of the items listed at the
Giuliani hearing would be investigated by that office.
10. The Maricopa County Recorder attended more than one
DefCon conference that focused on the ability to hack voting
machines. The Legislature was never informed that the outcome
of these conferences recommended that elected officials be
notified due to unprotected ports on the machines, passwords
left unset or left in default configurations and security
features of the underlying commercial hardware were left
unused or even disabled. It was recommended that to improve
election security, paper ballots should be used, and a
rigorous post-election audit be performed. We learned about
this issue via social media, and it was obfuscated by the
Election officials.
11. Arizona Republican State Chair Kelli Ward reports the
following malfeasance and obstruction:
a. No allowed review of the digitally adjudicated ballots--
over 200,000.
b. Only 100 of the duplicated ballots reviewed--3% error
rate in favor of President Trump. Maricopa County refused to
look at the other 28,000 ballots.
c. No meaningful signature verification. County employees
doing signature verification offsite, over the internet,
without oversight, and at times at a rate of 30 signatures or
more per minute.
12. The Secretary of State took 24 days to answer a public
records request by Merissa Hamilton, asking them to deliver
the meeting minutes from their technical committee to certify
the Dominion voting equipment. Only after four requests and
the involvement of the Ombudsman did she obtain the
information. The results of that request showed that despite
the voting equipment not being able to calculate the votes
properly, which was never addressed, the machines were still
certified. The Maricopa County RFP for the Dominion equipment
did not give the public a chance to give input on the
procurement. There was never any discussion or an offer of
various options to choose from. The Board of Supervisors went
straight to a vote with no discussion and approved the
machines unanimously.
13. There are multiple/numerous examples of how on election
day observers and poll workers were prevented from overseeing
the various procedures, thereby undermining confidence that
there was no illegal activity and violating Arizona's
statutes regarding election integrity. We have had no formal
investigation into the vast majority of these accusations.
Summary
Arizona has many unresolved issues that we would like to
have investigated in order to confidently say our electors
voted for the true victor in the 2020 Presidential election.
We still have outstanding issues left unresolved and are
being stopped at nearly every turn from investigating. For
example, the Maricopa County Recorder's office started
counting early ballots 14 days before election day. During
that time, the backup server was removed each night by a
Dominion employee. This is of significant concern because the
information on those servers could have been manipulated and/
or provided to nefarious people as to how many ballots/votes
were needed to change the results of the election as time
went on.
Many in the Legislature believe that if we are able to do a
forensic audit, we could investigate these and other serious
claims brought forward to us. However, as you can see by the
list above (not exhaustive but brief for your benefit) we
have many entities who appear to be blocking our efforts to
get to the bottom of the issue. One can only ask, in a
supposedly secure and fair election, why discovery is being
quashed.
Conclusion
It is asked that all of these issues be considered when
contemplating the eleven Arizona electoral votes. Our
election is still in dispute, and we have obfuscation and
attempts at running out the clock to prevent discovery of the
facts. We believe it is impossible to conclusively declare a
winner in Arizona and pray that you would refrain from
counting the electoral votes from our state, and consider the
alternate slate should we be able to establish validity to
the various claims of election fraud on such a scale that
would change the outcome.
Thank you, kindly, for your attention to these matters.
____
A Resolution to Congress
Whereas, it is the constitutional and legal obligation of
the Legislature of the State of Arizona to ensure that the
state's presidential electors truly represent the will of the
voters of Arizona; and
Whereas, pursuant to the direction of Congress as set forth
in United States Code, title 3, section 1 as authorized by
Article II, section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the
United States, and state law adopted pursuant thereto,
Arizona conducted an election for presidential electors on
the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November of 2020-
that is, on November 3, 2020; and
Whereas, that election was marred by irregularities so
significant as to render it highly doubtful whether the
certified results accurately represent the will of the
voters; and
Whereas, Congress has further directed in U.S. Code, title
3, section 2 that when a state ``has held an election for the
purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice
on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed
on a subsequent day in such manner as the legislature of such
State may direct''; and
Whereas, that provision implicitly recognizes that Article
II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants to
each state legislature, with stated limitations, the sole
authority to prescribe the manner of appointing electors for
that state; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court and other courts
have explained that when a state legislature directs the
manner of appointing electors, it does so pursuant to a grant
of authority from the U.S. Constitution rather than by reason
of any state constitutional or other legal provision; that
this authority may be exercised by the legislature alone
without other aspects of the normal lawmaking process; and
that the state legislature's authority over the appointment
of presidential electors is plenary and may be resumed at any
time; and
Whereas, because U.S. Code, title 3, section 7 mandates
that all presidential electors vote for President and Vice
President of the United States on December 14, 2020, it is
impossible to pursue the Legislature's preferred course of
action, which would be for Arizona's voters to participate in
a new and fair and free presidential election before that
date; and
Whereas, in view of the facts heretofore recited, the
Legislature is required to exercise its best judgment as to
which slate of electors the voters prefer; and
Whereas, legal precedent exists where in 1960 the State of
Hawaii sent an alternate slate of electors while the
Presidential election was still in question in order to meet
the deadline of selecting electors, and upon recount the
alternate slate of electors' ballots were ultimately counted;
and
Whereas, the undersigned have an obligation to find the
truth. For this reason, on several occasions since November
3, we state lawmakers have requested fact-finding hearings to
include a comprehensive and independent forensic audit. At
this time, no such
[[Page H82]]
audit has been authorized. This leaves the uncertainty of the
election results in a state that requires further
investigation and resolution; and
Whereas, ongoing election irregularity litigation is
currently active, and there are unresolved disputes by both
the Legislature and at least one Presidential campaign,
rendering the election inconclusive as of date of signing of
this letter,
Therefore, be it
Resolved by the undersigned Legislators, members of the
Arizona House and Senate, request that the alternate 11
electoral votes be accepted for to Donald J. Trump or to have
all electoral votes nullified completely until a full
forensic audit can be conducted. Be it further resolved that
the United States Congress is not to consider a slate of
electors from the State of Arizona until the Legislature
deems the election to be final and all irregularities
resolved.
Signed this day, 14 December, 2020.
Senator Elect Kelly Townsend, Legislative District 16;
Representative Kevin Payne, Legislative District 21;
Representative Mark Finchem, Legislative District 11; Senator
Sonny Borrelli, Legislative District 5; Representative Bret
Roberts, Legislative District 11; Representative Bob Thorpe,
Legislative District 6; Senator David Farnsworth, Legislative
District 16; Representative Leo Biasiucci, Legislative
District 5; Representative Anthony Kern, Legislative District
20; Senator Sylvia Allen, Legislative District 15; Senator
Elect Nancy Barto, Legislative District 15; Majority Leader
Warren Petersen, Legislative District 12; Representative
Steve Pierce, Legislative District 1; Representative Tony
Rivero, Legislative District 21; Senator David Gowan,
Legislative District 14; Representative David Cook,
Legislative District 8; Representative John Fillmore,
Legislative District 16; Representative Travis Grantham,
Legislative District 12; Representative Walter Blackman,
Legislative District 6; Representative Shawnna Bolick,
Legislative District 20; Representative Noel Campbell,
Legislative District 1; Representative Elect Jacqueline
Parker, Legislative District 16; Representative Elect Beverly
Pingerelli, Legislative District 21; Representative Elect
Jake Hoffman, Legislative District 12; Senator Elect Wendy
Rogers, Lt Col, USAF (ret), Legislative District 6;
Representative Elect Steve Kaiser, Legislative District 15;
Representative Elect Brenda Barton, Legislative District 6;
Representative Elect Joseph Chaplik, Legislative District 23;
Representative Elect Judy Burges, Legislative District 1;
Representative Elect Quang Nguyen, Legislative District 1.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Speaker, to ease everyone’s nerve, I want Members
to all know that I am not here to challenge anyone to a duel like
Alexander Hamilton or Aaron Burr.
Madam Speaker, my primary objection to the counting of the electoral
votes of the State of Arizona is based on the Constitution and the
direction of State legislatures through State law, as spelled out in
the following two clauses of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: “Each
State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may
direct, a number of electors.”
And the election clause of the Constitution provides State
legislatures with explicit authority to prescribe “the times, places,
and manner of holding elections.”
For more than three decades, Arizona law, set by the State
legislature, has required that voter registration end no later than 29
days before an election.
This is clear. It is law, unless amended by the State legislature.
This is the way it needs to be carried out.
In Arizona, the deadline for voter registration for the 2020
Presidential election was October 5, 2020. Using COVID as a reasoning,
Democrats filed a lawsuit to extend this deadline by 18 days. An
injunction was made by an Obama-appointed judge preventing the Arizona
secretary of state from enforcing the constitutional deadline set by
the State legislature.
As a result of this frivolous, partisan lawsuit, 10 extra days were
added via
judicial fiat to allow voter registration. These 10 days were added
after voting had already begun. This is completely indefensible. You
cannot change the rules of an election while it is underway and expect
the American people to trust it.
Now, in this 10-day period, at least 30,000 new voters were
registered to vote in Arizona. All of these votes are unconstitutional.
It does not matter if they voted for President Trump or if they voted
for Vice President Biden. They did not register in time for the
election. The law states October 5. Either we have laws or we do not.
If we allow State election laws as set forth by the State
legislatures to be ignored and manipulated on the whims of partisan
lawsuits, unelected bureaucrats, unlawful procedures, and arbitrary
rules, then our constitutional Republic will cease to exist.
The oath I took this past Sunday to defend and support the
Constitution makes it necessary for me to object to this travesty.
Otherwise, the laws passed by the legislative branch merely become
suggestions to be accepted, rejected, or manipulated by those who did
not pass them.
Madam Speaker, I have constituents outside of this building right
now. I promised my voters to be their voice. In this branch of
government in which I now serve, it is my separate but equal obligation
to weigh in on this election and object.
Are we not a government of, by, and for the people?
They know that this election is not right; and as their
Representative, I am sent here to represent them. I will not allow the
people to be ignored.
Madam Speaker, it is my duty under the U.S. Constitution to object to
the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Arizona. The
Members who stand here today and accept the results of this
concentrated, coordinated, partisan effort by Democrats, where every
fraudulent vote cancels out the vote of an honest America, has sided
with extremists on the left.
The United States Congress needs to make an informed decision, and
that starts with this objection.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).
Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, I rise as well to support the objection, and
I rise with the simple question: Can the Chair honestly tell Americans,
with a pending Supreme Court case over legal observers not being
allowed to observe and inspect signatures, that the laws and the
Constitution of that State were not violated to change voting outcomes?
Madam Speaker, I will wait for a response.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) has 25 seconds
remaining.
Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, I will repeat my question.
Can you honestly tell Americans, with a pending Supreme Court case
over legal observers not being able to observe and inspect signatures,
that the laws and Constitution of Arizona were not violated to change
voting outcomes?
And I will wait for a response.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the
objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, we have a solemn
responsibility today. We must vote to sustain objections to slates of
electors submitted by States that we genuinely believe clearly violated
the Constitution in the Presidential election of 2020.
This is the threshold legal question before us, and it is an issue
before us for the State of Arizona. We have to repeat this for emphasis
because a lot of people seem to be confused.
Because judges and not the State legislature changed the rules of the
election, Arizona clearly violated the plain language of Article II,
Section 1 of the Constitution in its selection of Presidential
electors.
The Framers of our Constitution recognized that elections were
susceptible to corruption. We all know that. So, how did they fix it?
How did they provide for that? They created the electoral college as a
safeguard, and they expressly empowered State legislatures to ensure
the integrity of our unique election system.
Only the State legislatures, because they are a full body of
representatives and not rogue officials, were given the authority to
direct the manner of appointing Presidential electors because it was so
important.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged this over and over. They
previously affirmed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: “The
appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with
the legislatures of the several States.” That authority can never be
taken away or abdicated.
The Arizona Legislature did enact detailed rules and procedures that
the State was supposed to follow to choose its electors. But in the
months preceding the 2020 election, as we have heard–and by the way,
a thousand pages of evidence have just been submitted on the facts on
this–those well-established rules and procedures were deliberately
changed.
They weren’t changed by the legislature, friends. They were changed
by judges. And those actions taken by the judiciary were not limited to
mere interpretations of existing law. No, they were substantive,
wholesale changes to those statutes.
Madam Speaker, that is a usurpation of the authority that the
legislature had. That usurpation was repeated across the country this
year. It is the primary reason–it is one of the reasons why the
election of 2020 became riddled with an unprecedented number of serious
allegations of fraud and irregularities all over the country.
National polls, it has been said, indicate that a huge percentage of
Americans now have serious doubts about not just the outcome of this
Presidential contest but also the future reliability of our election
system itself.
Since we are convinced that the election laws in Arizona and some
other key States were changed in this unconstitutional manner, we have
a responsibility today. The slates of electors produced under those
modified laws are thus unconstitutional. They are not “regularly
given” or “lawfully certified,” as required by the Electoral Count
Act, and they are invalid on their face. That is just the conclusion
that you have to reach.
Madam Speaker, given these inescapable facts, we believe we have no
choice today but to vote to sustain objections to those slates of
electors.
Mr. Raskin and others today have cited the 12th Amendment, and they
cite Article II, Section 1, Clause 3–remember that, Clause 3. And they
have asserted that Congress has only one narrow role today; we are just
supposed to count the electoral votes that have been submitted. But
those advocates have overlooked a critical first principle.
Their assertion is only true so long as Congress first is convinced
that the electoral votes were not produced by a process that violated
the Constitution is there. We have to get through Clause 2 of Article
II, Section 1, before we get to Clause 3 is the point.
Look, in our unique system, Congress is positioned as the last
bulwark in a Presidential election to ensure the Constitution has been
followed. Indeed, just two decades ago, the Supreme Court spoke to
this. They plainly acknowledged this important deliberative role of
Congress. It was the famous Bush v. Gore litigation that everybody
remembers from 2000.
In a per curiam opinion–meaning all nine Justices, that it was
unanimous–they noted strict adherence to the provisions of the
Electoral Count Act may create “a `safe harbor’ for a State insofar as
congressional consideration of its electoral votes is concerned.”
However, unanimously, the Court said since title 3, section 5
contains a principle of Federal law that would assure finality of the
State’s determination if they followed all the proscriptions there, if
the will of the legislature is attempted to be changed by a State
court, that is a problem. That, they said, Congress might deem to be a
change in the law.
That is precisely why we are here right now. Go read Bush v. Gore,
and you will see this.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas joined
in a concurring opinion 8 days later, and they reiterated this point.
A significant departure from the legislature’s scheme for appointing
Presidential electors presents a Federal question. It is a big problem
for us, and it is one we cannot get around. That is why we are here.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to look at the facts, to
follow the law, and to follow our congressional oath. We are supposed
to support and defend the Constitution. That is what we do here today.
I urge everyone to do the right thing.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I filed my challenge on the slate of
electors from the State of Arizona that was actually put forward by
Governor Ducey of Arizona.
My ask to you, the Speaker, through the Vice President, is simple. Do
not count these electors until and unless the secretary of state allows
a forensic audit of the election, a request she has denied repeatedly.
We have been told over and over that even though this was a public
election using public money and public machines utilizing public
employees, the public today has no ability to simply double-check the
veracity of these results.
{time} 1415
If the Presidential election was a football game, we would get a
slow-motion review from multiple angles and a
correction of a controversial decision. But not so, we are told by our
secretary of state, for the Presidential election, no review for you.
No access to the Dominion voting machines with a documented history
of enabling fraud through its now discredited adjudication system, a
system that literally allows one person to change tens of thousands of
votes in mere minutes.
In the only audit done in Arizona, a court found 3 percent error rate
against President Trump. Vice President Biden’s margin of error was
one-tenth of that, at 0.03 percent. By the way, a 3 percent error rate
at minimum is 90,000 ballots. After finding the 3 percent error rate,
the court stopped the audit and refused to go further.
In Arizona, as my attachments make clear, mail-in ballots were
altered on the first day of counting as shown in data graphs we have
provided, as concluded by data analysts. Over 400,000 mail-in ballots
were altered, switched from President Trump to Vice President Biden, or
completely erased from President Trump’s totals.
The proof is in the counting curves, the curves that cannot occur
except with odds so rare and unlikely that winning the Mega Millions
lottery is more probable.
Mr. Speaker, can I have order in the Chamber?
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the probability of these
ectopic curves, you have a better likelihood of winning the Mega
Millions lottery than you do having statistical issues here.
Over 30,000 illegal aliens voted in Arizona using the Federal ballot,
yet our secretary of state refused the public access to review the
ballots.
Over a thousand residences were visited for proof of residency and
address; 456 failed that test. They were vacant lots. Even the
Recorder’s office was used as an address.
What are they hiding? If the process was fair, these would be
improbable. These would be once-in-a-lifetime-type applications.
So let’s look at the ballots, the signatures, and the adjudicated
records. Until this is done, Mr. Speaker, we should not count this
slate.
You have a letter from the Arizona Legislature stating its intent to
review the issue on January 11. Our Governor has refused to allow the
State to properly convene to do its proper oversight.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you one question today: Are you a ceremonial
figurehead in your current role, or did the drafters of the 12th
Amendment and Congress, in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, envision a
role where you made discretionary decisions about ballot fraud and fair
elections?
If you are merely ceremonial, then let’s be done with this. Let’s eat
our tea and crumpets and witness our national decline.
But if you are not merely ceremonial but vested with discernment,
rationality, and legal authority to not just count from 1 to 270, then
do not accept Arizona’s electors as certified. Remand the slate back to
the secretary of state, back to the Governor, with the following
instructions: Until a full, complete electoral forensic audit is
allowed by the secretary of state, the electors currently certified
will not be counted.
It will then fall on the State of Arizona to decide are its electors
in the game or not. Anything less is an abdication of our
constitutional Republic and our ethos: one man, one vote.
We ask: Why? What is there to hide? Shouldn’t the lawful victor of an
election be proud, open, and transparent about an election audit? I
would. Instead, we are met with denials, cover-ups, and contempt of
subpoenas.
There is too much evidence of fraud, demonstrated by statistical
anomalies that experts have determined cannot happen in the absence of
fraud, to accept such a slate. I am not asking these electors never be
counted; it is just that they need to be certified the proper way.
Our beloved Constitution is but a mere piece of paper if we do not
follow the law, upholding the law. But now, alas, we find ourselves
lawless, destroying the very thread that binds us together. But we need
to get back to the rule of law. That is what has been violated, truly,
by the actions in these States.
Recess
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(b) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 2 o’clock and 29 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess.
[Here the composer of objections to Biden’s Arizona electors includes oppositions to the objections, declaring that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was an “armed insurrection.” But, the protestors were NOT ARMED. They had no ability to ‘take over’ the Capitol or congress. In fact, except for the first wave who breached the Capitol, the remainder were ushered in, some guided through the Capitol. So, where did Rep. Stanton come up with ‘armed insurrection,” the very accusation being levied against President Trump?]
Mr. STANTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STANTON. Madam Speaker, over the last few hours, we have seen the consequences of dangerous un-American rhetoric; an armed insurrection against the seat of government of the most powerful country on Earth; a breach of this Capitol building to attack Congress, something that has not taken place since the British occupied this building during the War of 1812; an attempted coup spurred by rhetoric coming from those who are looking out for themselves, not country. It is stunning, Madam Speaker, that there are some in this House who have voiced support for what happened. It was not a protest. It was treason. It was sedition. And it should be prosecuted as such.
[I did not include the all Democrat opposition because it was all the same, 'We are a Democracy,' or the 'counting of electors is a formality, a duty.' But this opposition by Rep Stanton stood out because the rhetoric/narrative of Armed Insurrection, Sedition, and Prosecution of Trump first appeared . . . so I suggest not only the Attack on the Capitol was pre-planned, but so was the Narrative.]
[The 2nd Articles of Impeachment addressed the January 6th attack on the Capitol, but the Senate failed to convict President Trump.]
Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart. This has been
a truly tragic day for America. We all join together in fully
condemning the dangerous violence and destruction that occurred today
in our Nation’s Capitol.
Americans will always have their freedom of speech and the
constitutional right to protest, but violence in any form is absolutely
unacceptable. It is anti-America, and must be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law.
Thank you to the heroic United States Capitol Police. And thank you
to the bipartisan professional staff of the United States Capitol for
protecting the people’s House and the American people.
This hallowed temple of democracy is where generations of Americans
have peacefully come together to face our Nation’s greatest challenges,
bridge our deepest fissures, and create a more perfect system of
government. This is the appropriate place we stand to respectfully and
peacefully give voice to the people we represent across our diverse
country.
The Representatives of the American people in this House are standing
up for three fundamental American beliefs: The right to vote is sacred,
that a Representative has a duty to represent his or her constituents,
and that the rule of law is a hallmark of our Nation.
And in the spirit of healing–those are not my words–those are the
words of you, Madam Speaker, from this very Chamber, when some of my
colleagues and friends across the aisle objected to the 2005 electoral
college certification.
In fact, there were objections on this floor to the certification of
nearly every Republican President in my lifetime: In 1989, in 2001, in
2005, and in 2017.
So history is our guide that the people’s sacred House is the
appropriate venue for a peaceful debate. And this peaceful debate
serves as a powerful condemnation to the violence that perpetrated our
Capitol grounds today. The violence that was truly un-American.
Today’s discussion is about the Constitution and it is about the
American people, but it must also be about clearly and resolutely
condemning the violence that occurred today.
I am honored each and every day to represent New York’s 21st
Congressional District, and I believe it is my solemn and sacred duty
to serve as their voice and their vote in the people’s House.
Tens of millions of Americans are concerned that the 2020 election
featured unconstitutional overreach by unelected State officials and
judges ignoring State election laws. We can and we should peacefully
and respectfully discuss these concerns.
In Pennsylvania, the State supreme court and secretary of state
unilaterally and unconstitutionally rewrote election law eliminating
signature matching requirements.
In Georgia, there was constitutional overreach when the secretary of
state unilaterally and unconstitutionally gutted signature matching for
absentee ballots and, in essence, eliminated voter verification
required by State election law.
In Wisconsin, officials issued illegal rules to circumvent a State
law, passed by the legislature as the Constitution requires, but
required absentee voters to provide further identification before
obtaining a ballot.
In Michigan, signed affidavits document numerous unconstitutional
irregularities: Officials physically blocking the legal right of poll
watchers to observe vote counts, the illegal counting of late ballots,
and hand-stamping ballots with the previous day’s date.
My North Country constituents and the American people cherish the
Constitution. They know, according to the Constitution, elected
officials closest to the people in State legislatures have the power of
the pen to write election law, not unelected bureaucrats, judges,
Governors, or secretaries of state.
To the tens of thousands of constituents who have reached out to me,
thank you. Please know that I am listening and I hear you, both those
who agree and those who disagree. Our Constitutional Republic will
endure this tragic day because the Founding Fathers understood Congress
and the American people would face unprecedented and historic
challenges by debating them on this very floor.
I believe that the most precious foundation and the covenant of our
Republic is the right to vote, and the faith in the sanctity of our
Nation’s free and fair elections. We must work together in this House
to rebuild that faith so that all our elections are free, fair, secure,
safe and, most importantly, that they are according to the United
States Constitution.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the
objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, for years, Democrats and their
media allies deceived America about Trump-Russian collusion and the
extent of foreign interference in the 2016 elections. Yet, in 2020,
Democrats promoted massive foreign interference in American elections
by helping illegal aliens and other noncitizens vote in American
elections, thereby canceling the votes of and stealing elections from
American citizens.
Want evidence? Exhibit A. In 1993, Democrats rammed through Congress
the National Voter Registration Act, making it illegal–illegal–to
require proof of citizenship that prevents illegal aliens and
noncitizens from registering to vote.
Why did Democrats do that? Simple. To steal elections, of course.
Exhibit B. How bad is the noncitizen voting problem? In 2005,
Democrat President Jimmy Carter’s Commission on Federal Election Reform
warned that “noncitizens have registered to vote in several recent
elections” and recommended that “all States should use their best
efforts to obtain proof of citizenship before registering voters.”
Exhibit C. A June 2005 General Accountability Office report
discovered that up to 3 percent of people on voter registration lists
are not U.S. citizens.
Exhibit D. In 2008, Electoral Studies surveyed 339 noncitizens. Eight
percent admitted voting in American elections.
As an aside, I have seen higher percentages in other studies.
Exhibit E. The 2010 Census counted 11 million illegal aliens in
America.
Exhibit F. A 2018 Yale study estimated as many as 22 million illegal
aliens in America.
Exhibit G. The math means between 880,000 and 1.72 million illegal
aliens illegally voted in the 2020 elections.
Exhibit H. In 2014, Old Dominion University and George Mason
University professors surveyed noncitizens and illegal aliens and found
they vote Democrat roughly 80 percent of the time.
Exhibit I. The math is again straightforward. The 60 percent Biden
advantage times the illegal alien voting number means Joe Biden gained
roughly 1,032,000 votes from illegal alien voting. That is the high
number.
Exhibit J. While no one knows for sure how massive the illegal alien
voting bloc is, we do know Joe Biden and his campaign believed it large
enough and critical enough to winning the Presidential race that, at
the October 22 Presidential debate, Joe Biden publicly solicited the
illegal alien bloc vote by promising: “Within 100 days, I am going to
send to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11
million undocumented people.”
Ladies and gentlemen, Madam Speaker, that is the pot of gold at the
end of the rainbow for illegal aliens. Joe Biden knew exactly what he
was doing by seeking the illegal alien bloc vote. After all, on May 11,
1993, then-Senator Joe Biden voted for the National Voter Registration
Act, which makes it illegal to require proof of citizenship from
illegal aliens and other noncitizens when they seek to register to
vote.
Madam Speaker, the evidence is compelling and irrefutable.
Noncitizens overwhelmingly voted for Joe Biden in exchange for the
promised amnesty and citizenship and in so doing helped steal the
election from Donald Trump, Republican candidates, and American
citizens across America.
Madam Speaker, in my judgment, if only lawful votes cast by eligible
American citizens are counted, Joe Biden lost and President Trump won
the electoral college.
As such, it is my constitutional duty to promote honest and accurate
elections by rejecting electoral college vote submissions from States
whose electoral systems are so badly flawed as to render their vote
submissions unreliable, untrustworthy, and unworthy of acceptance.
Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, my constitutional oath is sacred, and I
have a duty to speak out about confirmed evidence-filled issues with
the administration of the 2020 Presidential election in certain
battleground States.
Signature verification, ballot observation, voter roll integrity,
voter ID requirements, and ballot collection protections were weakened
on top of the millions of mailboxes that were flooded with unrequested
mail-in ballots.
Many of my constituents have been outraged and demanding that I voice
their objections here today.
This debate is necessary because rogue election officials,
secretaries of state, and courts circumvented State election laws. They
made massive changes to how their State’s election would be run. These
acts, among other issues, were unlawful and unconstitutional.
Congress has the duty to defend the Constitution and any powers of
State legislatures that were usurped.
Some claim today’s objections set new precedent by challenging State
electors. That claim, of course, ignores that Democrats have objected
every time a Republican Presidential candidate has won an election over
the past generation. If you don’t have any observations today, that is
your call, but don’t lecture about precedent.
Over the past 4 years, Democrats boycotted President Trump’s
inauguration and State of the Union Addresses, pushed the Trump-Russia
collusion conspiracies and investigations and knowingly lied about it,
voted to impeach the President before even knowing what to impeach him
for, and then actually passed Articles of Impeachment before Senate
Democrats voted to remove him from office.
Today’s debate is necessary, especially because of the insistence
that everything President Trump and his supporters say about the 2020
election is evidence-free. That is simply not true.
No one can honestly claim it is evidence-free. When I say that, in
Arizona, courts unilaterally extended the legislatively set deadline to
register to vote.
{time} 2200
The Arizona State Senate issued subpoenas post-election to get
information from the Maricopa County board on various election matters,
but the board and the courts refused to help at all to let the State
senate complete its constitutional duties.
In Pennsylvania, where State legislators wrote us about their powers
being usurped, the Democrat majority on the State supreme court changed
signature, signature matching and postal marking requirements. The date
to submit mail-in ballots was extended contradictory to the date set by
State law.
The State legislature expanded no-excuse mail-in balloting without a
constitutional amendment. Constitutions apply to the acts of all
branches of government.
The issue was magnified by the voter rolls being so inaccurate that
more voters submitted ballots than there were registered voters.
Signature authentication rules for absentee and mail-in ballots were
weakened by the Democrat secretary of the Commonwealth without
authorization. Ballot defects were allowed to be cured in some counties
but not others. There were poll watchers denied the ability to closely
observe ballot counting operations.
In Georgia, the secretary of state unilaterally entered into a
settlement agreement with the Democratic Party, changing statutory
requirements for confirming voter identity. Challenging defective
signatures was made far more difficult, and the settlement even
required election officials to consider issuing training materials
drafted by an expert retained by the Democratic Party.
In Wisconsin, election officials assisted voters on how to circumvent
the State’s voter ID laws and signature verification laws, while also
placing unmanned drop boxes in locations picked to boost Democrat
turnout. The Democracy in the Park event in Wisconsin had over 17,000
ballots transferred that shouldn’t have been.
These are all facts and certainly not “evidence free.”
Americans deserve nothing less than full faith and confidence in
their elections and a guarantee that their vote–their voice–counts
and that their concerns are being heard. That is why we need to have
this debate today, whether you like it or not.
This isn’t about us. This is about our Constitution, our elections.
This is about our people and our Republic.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favor
of the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, it has been quite a day.
And in contrast to the gentleman’s comments just now, I couldn’t get
over this text that I received from the mayor of Charlotte, Vi Lyles,
about 30 minutes ago. She is a progressive Democrat, a political
opponent for years, a tremendous and graceful person. She said:
Representative Bishop, I hope you are safe and well. It
must have been a day of anguish for the world to see our
Capitol buildings under siege. I know you have a long night
ahead and want you to know I was thinking about you, your
family, and staff.
God bless.
Vi.
Back home, the generosity of spirit still exists.
And I understand the sharp words and feelings on the other side
tonight, but there are also good people back home, and I have heard
from many, many, many of them.
News would suggest there are millions of Americans–that is a big
number–millions, tens of millions, who believe something went awry in
this election. And they aren’t dumb. They aren’t mindless. They don’t
believe things simply because the President says them. There were
problems.
I know that Joe Biden will be President, but I don’t know that it
hurts or would hurt any of us to have the generosity of spirit to
continue to reflect on what might be better or what might seriously
have gone wrong here, even if you reject the notion that the result was
wrong.
I would like to offer a slightly different perspective, a distinct
perspective. Perhaps it will be rejected. I think if I were sitting on
the other side of the aisle, it would be very difficult for me to
listen to tonight, but you all have heard it said, and it certainly is
true, that many executive branch officials around the Nation departed
from State legislatures’ enacted laws.
I know it is less understood how this came to pass.
It was not a spontaneous, independent decision making, but it
resulted, I would argue, from a coordinated, nationwide partisan plan.
And the fact and scope of the plan really isn’t disputed.
If you go to democracydocket.com, it is the website of Marc Elias,
the national Democratic election lawyer who appeared in hundreds of
cases across the country in the course of the election year.
This plan was not a response to COVID, by the way. It preexisted
that. And his website shows that as well. He explained that in January
of 2020.
It was a chaos strategy, a plan to flood State and Federal courts
with hundreds of simultaneous election year lawsuits aimed at
displacing State legislative control.
Now, as I have seen it, only the most experienced and independent
judges appear to have recognized what was afoot. In the fourth circuit,
dissenting judges Wilkinson and Agee said this: “Let’s understand the
strategy that is being deployed here . . . Our country is now plagued
with a proliferation of preelection litigation.” And as they put it,
385 election year cases to that point on October 20, and they referred
to the website healthyelections.org to verify that.
“Around the country,” they wrote, “courts are changing the rules
of the upcoming elections at the last minute. It makes the promise of
the Constitution’s Elections and Electors Clauses into a farce.”
This was a political operation masquerading as a judicial one. And in
keeping with that, it featured gross breaches of litigation ethics:
forum shopping, repetitive suits after losses, and collusive
settlements with cooperating Democratic officials of State and local
governments.
That is what led to officials changing the rules in State after
State, mainly through consent orders, or the preliminary, unreviewed
decisions of State and Federal trial judges inclined by partisanship or
having limited experience with the Electoral Clause.
In turn, the displacement of rules set by State legislatures led to
chaotic conditions on the ground, about which so many Americans are
angry and disheartened.
I think we can do better. I think that strategy was unwise, and I
think, particularly in light of what has happened here today, we
should.
Yeas 131
Nays 303
Composer’s End Note:
This 22-page extraction of the formal objections is only the first part. Next will be the Senate record. Later on I’ll provide the House and Senate hearings on the Pennsylvania objection.
Note that the Democrat opposition rely on the failure in of the courts to allow audits or challenges to the very unconstitutional election process revisions the courts approved to begin with. The Republicans had no friends or help from the courts. They also consider the Counting of Electors merely ceremonial, no legislative challenges permitted.
Paralegalnm's Blog 
Leave a comment