Brooks Agnew – This was just one stage of the entire constitutional electoral process. But it is by no means the final or irrevocable step. We have not reached the point of no return in preventing the Chinese Communist Party from installing Joe Biden as our next president, no matter how much Xi Jinping is salivating to make you and me vassals of the CCP.

Other On-Going Actions By President Trump And His Legal Team

There are still a number of cases that may soon make it to the United States Supreme Court for final adjudication and remedy. That process is far from being exhausted. As Attorney General William Barr has just resigned and Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen soon takes over, we are still eagerly anticipating potential criminal cases against those who fraudulently certified election results. Charges of treason against some should be seriously considered.

Ratcliff’s report, which was due 45 days after the election, has been delayed.  And delayed again.  And delayed again.  Why?  There is far too much evidence of an act of war against our election infrastructure by a foreign country; namely China.  It is so pervasive, that it demands a military response.  It is so sensitive, that Biden’s staff has been kicked out of the Pentagon, because it implicates them.  Yes, we’re talking treason of the highest order.

 It will undoubtedly identify and document China as primary perpetrator and Iran as secondary for having committed covert acts to change election results against Trump in favor of Biden.  It will also name Americans who took bribes, changed rules, violated State and federal laws, and abetted our enemies in their act of war against us.  Some of them are elected officials.  Some of them are CCP soldiers who are working inside our own government, or inside major corporations who deal in voting machines, software, and cyber-communications.

What action the President and Commander-in-Chief will take is something we must await. But you can rest assured that assertive action is forthcoming in the very near future!  It must be military, and it must be very large in order to be victorious.  Yes, we are focused on victory.  It’s called justice.

Congress Plays A Constitutional Role In This Process

When the certificate or equivalent paper from each state or the District of Columbia is read, “the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.” Any such objection must be presented in writing and must be signed by at least one Senator and one Representative. The objection “shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof.”

When an objection, properly made in writing and endorsed by at least one Senator and one Representative, is received, each house is to meet and consider it separately.

The statute states, “No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.”

The joint session does not act on any objections that are made. Instead, the joint session is suspended, the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each house meets separately to debate the objection and vote whether, based on the objection, to count the vote or votes in question.

Both houses must vote separately to agree to the objection by simple majority. Otherwise, the objection fails and the vote or votes are counted. (3 U.S.C. §15 provides that “the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes.”)

Both houses used roll call votes to decide the question.

Section 17 lays out procedures for each house to follow when debating and voting on an objection. These procedures limit debate on the objection to not more than two hours, during which each Member may speak only once and for not more than five minutes. Then “it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate.”

Congress thought it might, as grounds for an objection, question and look into the lawfulness of the certification under state law.

The question of which state authority is “the lawful tribunal of such State” to make the decision (and thus the acceptance of those electors’ votes) shall be decided only upon the concurrent agreement of both houses “supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law.”

If there is no determination by a state authority of the question of which slate was lawfully appointed, then the two chambers must agree concurrently to accept the votes of one set of electors; but the two chambers may also concurrently agree not to accept the votes of electors from that state.

When the two houses disagree, then the statute states that the votes of the electors whose appointment was certified by the governor of the state shall be counted.

[*When there is only ONE determination by the state made in a TIMELY fashion under the state’s election contest law and procedures (even when there are two or more lists or slates of electors presented before Congress), then Congress shall accept that state determination.

[* This is why it is crucially important that the contested states filed alternate slates of electors pledged to Donald Trump by the “Safe Harbor” deadline of December 8th.]

* There appears only to have been one example, in 1961, when the governor of the state of Hawaii first certified the electors of Vice President Richard M. Nixon as having been appointed, and then, due to a subsequent recount which determined that Senator John F. Kennedy had won the Hawaii vote, certified Senator Kennedy as the winner. Both slates of electors had met on the prescribed day in December, cast their votes for President and Vice President, and transmitted them according to the federal statute.

This was the case even though the recount was apparently not completed until a later date, that is, not until December 28. The presiding officer, that is, the President of the Senate, Vice President Nixon, suggested “without the intent of establishing a precedent” that the latter and more recent certification of Senator Kennedy be accepted so as “not to delay the further count of electoral votes.” This was agreed to by unanimous consent.

[* Our Hawaii GOP ought to seriously look at this significant retrospective which occurred barely one year after Hawaii statehood. So should other states doing signature comparison and forensic audits. This precedent, endorsed by then losing candidate Richard Nixon in 1961, indicates that an amended certification that changed the outcome of an election in a particular state was accepted as late as December 28th. Every member of Congress should also be fully aware of this!]

Although there are only two candidates, in the event that no candidate has received a majority of the electoral votes for President, the election is ultimately to be decided by the House of Representatives in which the names of the three candidates receiving the most electoral votes for President are considered by the House, with each state having one vote.

In the event that no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes for Vice President, the names of the two candidates receiving the highest number of electoral votes for that post are submitted to the Senate, which elects the Vice President by majority vote of the Senators.

SF Source Brooks Agnew Dec 2020