It takes one House Representative and one Senator to challenge Electoral Votes from each State. At least 12 Senators and 140 House Representatives are expected to challenge votes from the States where the alleged fraud occurred, namely Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and possibly also Arizona and Nevada.
There are two possible outcomes:
1). Senator Ted Cruz’s initiative succeeds to appoint an Emergency Electoral Commission to perform an Emergency Audit of the election results to assess the claims of fraud within 10 days, before the inauguration on the 20th January. This is based on the precedent of the presidential election of 1876, Hayes versus Tilden, when there were allegations of fraud in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Back then it consisted of five House members, five Senators, and five Supreme Court justices. They considered evidence, examined the ballots, and made a determination based upon what the disputed ballots and what the outcome should be. It remains to be determined if this would even be considered now and what shape it could take.
On one hand, the number of Senators and House Representatives challenging the results, and the number of States being challenged, is totally unprecedented. The United States has never seen anything like this before. Furthermore, even 17% of Democrats and 31% of Independents agree the Elections were rigged, according to highly biased polls that tend to undermine all things populist/conservative. So one can only assume the real numbers are actually higher, and the unprecedented nature of the situation kicks in even stronger.
On the other hand, there is a catch.
2). The abovementioned precedent was supposed to be remedied by the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which said if a dispute occurred, there should be a 2-hour window in the Senate and the House of Representatives, for each State, to debate the allegations. Then the outcome should be decided by a majority vote in each the Senate and the House of Representatives. If both agree, either way, it is clear that what the outcome is – either the acceptance of the certified votes or the challenger votes. In this scenario, the most likely outcome is that both vote to withhold the original votes and Biden becomes POTUS. Much less likely is that one vote differently than the other, and then things get problematic.
All MSM is now calling this Act to substantiate the claim that gives Vice President Mike Pence only ceremonial or administrative, but not deciding role in opening and counting the Electoral Votes. If you blindly trust the MSM and you are triggered by anything that goes against it… well, you shouldn’t be reading this in the first place since we are in a conspiracy sub! But on a more serious note, let’s dissect this.
Conclusions
It all boils down to the interpretation of the following sequences of the Constitution:
a) Article I, Section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.
b) Article II, Section 1: The President of the Senate (i.e. Vice President, Mike Pence in this case) shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted.
c) 12th Amendment: The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; if no person have such majority, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.
Issues with these are as follows:
a) Rules of Elections in contested States in 2020 set by States’ Legislatures as per the US Constitution were overruled by the State Governors and Judges, breaking the US Constitution. This is an undeniable fact. This is what the Texas et al. case argued and what SCOTUS dismissed on a “standing” basis fearing a political backlash, giving way to…
b) the Vice President to be the ultimate judge on these claims, as per the US Constitution and his right to “open (constitutionally) certified votes”. The Vice President has the ultimate right to determine which votes were constitutionally certified, and as a result, dismiss those that were certified unconstitutionally.
c) if b) occurs, the contested States are dismissed, and none of the candidates reaches the required 270 Electoral votes, then the final count would occur in the House, giving each State one vote each. GOP has 26 out of the 50 States, so it would require 100% discipline among the GOP States to overrule existing results.
So...civil war, right?
The procedures here just seem too wibbly-wobbly, and in every case where there's been leeway like this, the corruption wins out because that's what corruption does. It skirts the rules disregarding ethics, intent, or spirit of law while the non-corrupt politicians, like most people, will pick the coward's path.
I hope I'm wrong.
Here’s a spoiler: nothing happens and Joe Biden is inaugurated on the 20th.
You do realize that believing everything that the MSM reports and not believing anything that the MSM reports is the same thing, right? It's the same exact degree of cognitive dissonance?
I don't need any media outlet to tell me what's going to go down tomorrow because I firm enough understanding of the situation and of reality to adjust my expectations accordingly. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, etc.
I'm not usually this frank, but you're an idiot. If you believe everything from a source, then that source is by definition dictating your worldview. If you choose not to believe anything from a source, that doesn't mean you believe the opposite of the source's worldview. It just means that you're looking at other sources that you have determined are more trustworthy.
Those are not the same thing.
It’s intellectually dishonest to define the entirety of the mainstream media as a single “source.” Even a broken clock is right twice a day, etc.
You’re giving the benefit of the doubt to one side while eliminating all nuance from the other. A person who exclusively gets their news from places like zerohedge, Epoch Times, etc. is not any less ignorant than someone who exclusively reads CNN and MSNBC. They have all their agendas and they all cater to an audience that wants their prejudices confirmed.
It really is, though. There's no difference between someone who religiously accepts the party line from CNN, MSNBC and so on and the type of person who gullibly buys into every poorly-written piece of journalism from these so-called "alternative news sources."
"Nope" is not an acceptable rebuttal to this observation, by the way.
Rejecting the globalist-controlled MSM narrative doesn’t mean you necessarily believe every “poorly-written piece of journalism”. Free-thinking folks call out the BS where there is BS. It just so happens that the MSM is paid to construct a false reality to gaslight the public to further its own interests and their own.
So, let me get your logic here my man....
CNN reported that the United States invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan. You're saying that's fake news correct?
Or is there maybe some nuance and he's correct?
If that does occur, our resistance will make yours for the last four years look like an elementary school play.
What exactly was "my" resistance? You assume that I voted for Hillary because I know that absolutely nothing is going to happen tomorrow that changes the results of the election?
Another partisan hack.
I assume based on your words. You're either a dimwit Democrat or a spineless faggot. Both are equally useless.
You people sure do enjoy calling into question the sexual orientation of every single person who disagrees with you. It's not exactly emblematic of a deep intelligence.
Huh? What crowd are you talking about? I've never once talked about Trump's dick or questioned anyone's sexuality. The neanderthals on this forum call everyone and everything "faggot" the second they sense it's not MAGA.
If the shoe fits...