I do not “grasp at straws”, @LarrySchweikart and you are not the only person with an education.👨‍🎓

-First, re the Electoral Slates for Trump: they are currently *uncertified*. We hope to get them retroactively certified.

-I sincerely hope you are helping us do this by organizing your followers to make phone calls to their Legislators, instead of complaining about the process. No time for that.

-Secondly, I will address, once again, the historic role of the @VP vis-à-vis 12A & ECA of 1887.
-Because of the ambiguity of 12A, its passive voice phrasing, I posit the “President of the Senate” has the exclusive constitutional authority to determine which “certificates” to “open” and thus which electoral votes “to be counted” in the event competing slates arrive.
-Now, you are coming from the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which is a convoluted mess.

-You inferred the Trump electors are "illegitimate”.

-Well, the Act says only the votes “appointed in accordance with the laws of the State” may be "counted".

OBJECTION! LOL!😝
-Trump loyal Rs shall argue the “executive certified” slates are illegitimate because of election irregularities from the contested states.

-But what if the Trump slates are not certified by 1/6? Then both will be thrown out.
-But who throws them out? You're arguing it is Congress, both chambers agreeing. I get it.

-However, the Act is an impenetrable text of 807 words and a quagmire of confusion open to different interpretations.

-In martial arts, ambiguity (or formlessness) is an ally.
-Your premise: “But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted”(3 U.S. Code § 15).
-I’m sure you will agree this portion of the text clearly violates Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2-3 by usurping the powers of the *Legislatures* in the “manner” they decide to “choose electors”.
-Having said that, another part says if 2 slates arrive “those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the *two Houses shall concurrently decide* were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State”(3 U.S. Code § 15).

The Act contradicts itself.
-My premise: the only means of overcoming the impasse (which is going to occur) of a tie between the Houses, is found in the “presiding officer” of the @VP. After all tiebreaking is a Constitutional function of the President of the Senate.
-Moreover, it must be remembered that 19th century Republicans claimed the “Act was unconstitutional because it interferes with the exclusive authority vested in the President of the Senate to determine which electoral votes from the states to count” (See Ballot Battles).
-On these grounds, I would urge the @VP to assert a constitutional prerogative to supersede the provisions of the Electoral Count Act and declare its operation entirely irrelevant, or inapplicable, given the extraordinary circumstances of the 2020 elections.
-From this position, he's well-suited (as I argued above under 12A), to unilaterally decide which electors to “count”.

-And why not? Ds, RINOs, and rogue judges in contested states, ignored their own constitutional statutes which is why we are in a crisis.

Let's work together!

More from Politics

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.