Praying Medic's Blog, page 32

The Twitter Purge Is On – What Happens Next?

The second in a series of articles on where America may be headed following the 2020 election.

In my previous post, I suggested that Silicon Valley tech companies plan to cut off communication between President Trump and his supporters. Less than 24 hours later, the President’s Twitter account was permanently suspended, and according to several sources, 4.5 million Trump supporters were purged from Twitter.

I believe the elites’ goal is not just to remove Trump and his supporters from Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, but prevent us from communicating on other platforms. In my last post, I pointed out that alternative social media sites are subject to deplatforming. Yesterday, Google removed the social media app Parler from its store, and Apple has issued a 24-hour deadline for the company to implement censorship.

In my last video, I noted that social media platforms are vulnerable to pressure applied to the companies that provide their web hosting. Today, California Democrat Representative Ro Khanna demanded that Amazon Web Services stop hosting Parler.

Parler is hosted by Amazon Web services (AWS). Amazon should deny Parler services until Jan 21 unless they commit to removing all posts related to incitement of violence concerning inauguration. This will help prevent further violence and save lives.

— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) January 9, 2021

Khanna said he is concerned about “the incitement of violence concerning inauguration.” Washinton DC fears two things: a civilian-led revolution against the incoming administration or a military intervention before Biden is inaugurated.

Newsweek caught wind of my post and published an article highlighting my thoughts and those of other Trump supporters about resistance to the Biden administration—the kind Trump had to put up with for four years. (I would remind readers that I am not endorsing insurrection or advocating the overthrow of the government.)

Nancy Pelosi is frantically trying to have President Trump removed from office or prevent him from taking military action before the 20th while Congress weighs another attempt at impeachment. Why the hysteria over a man who is supposed to leave the White House in 11 days?

DC is panicking because they’re worried that Trump won’t leave on his own accord. That thought causes them fear, but it causes me to have hope.

I have no way of knowing whether Trump has a plan to remain in office past the 20th. I don’t know if military leaders would support him in that effort. But the swamp is worried about that possibility and their concern may be based on information we don’t have access to. Once politicians expressed their fear publicly, the Pentagon had to make a statement. The DoD has officially denied such ideas, but that means nothing. If the military did have a plan, they wouldn’t announce it. Mike Pompeo is tweeting about an orderly transition to the Biden administration, which is exactly what I would expect him to do, whether Trump had other plans or not. Trump’s people could not publicly acknowledge an alternate plan if they knew about it. And if there is a plan, I would expect only a handful of people to be briefed on it.

That means we’re all in the dark. I would be surprised if we received any meaningful information from the President or his surrogates in the next few days. If he speaks publicly, I would expect it to be about social media censorship and not the election, and certainly not about remaining in office. The fog of war has thickened considerably.

If the swamp gets wind of an organized effort to forcefully resist the incoming Biden administration, I would expect more steps to be taken to keep Trump supporters from communicating. That might include suspending access to apps like Telegram and Whatsapp and email services. Further steps might involve the disruption of computer and mobile device operating systems. If any of this occurs, remember that we did not have this technology in 1980 and we got by just fine.

I am on Gab and Parler, but my long-term plan is to host my messages on CloutHub, which is building its own video hosting and live-streaming service. Clouthub offers many of the features of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube without censorship and they don’t sell your personal information. If the Clouthub app is not available in your country, you might consider using a VPN to hide your location and download the app. Some may find it helpful to learn how to manually install an app when it is not available in the app store.

I normally host a live broadcast on the second Saturday of the month, but my Periscope account was suspended yesterday. I will continue hosting live broadcasts on Clouthub once their new live streaming service is available.

That’s all for this update.

Please keep the President in prayer

The post The Twitter Purge Is On – What Happens Next? appeared first on Praying Medic.

Welcome to the Second American Revolution

As most of you know, yesterday, Mike Pence presided over the counting of the electoral college vote. Contrary to what many of us hoped for, he refused to consider the votes for Donald Trump that electors from several states had submitted. In doing so, he allowed Joe Biden to be declared the winner of the 2020 Presidential election. While many people are rehashing the day’s events, friends are asking me what happens next. In this article, I’ll share my thoughts on what may happen over the next few months.

This morning, Dan Scavino tweeted a message on behalf of the president.

Statement by President Donald J. Trump on the Electoral Certification:

“Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th. I have always said we would continue our…

— Dan Scavino

A New Theory About Counting the Electoral College Votes

I wasn’t going to post another message before January 6th, the day electoral votes are counted during a joint session of Congress. I was content to stand on my previous assessment, but recent statements made by Vice-President Pence have made me think that perhaps a different plan may be in the works.

The President has invited his supporters to come to Washington DC on the 6th. It’s hard for me to imagine him wanting his base to witness the most humiliating defeat of his career. The invitation for his supporters to come to Washington suggests that he has some plan in place to pull out a victory. Based on the assumption he has such a plan, here is my current thinking.

At present, about a dozen GOP Senators have said they plan to challenge the votes of some electors on January 6th. The majority of Republican Senators claim they haven’t seen evidence of fraud so objections to electoral votes are not warranted.

Senior Trump campaign advisor Jason Miller said the campaign intends to present specific evidence of election fraud at the joint session of Congress. At a rally in Georgia today, Mike Pence confirmed that evidence of election fraud will be presented to Congress.

In a tweet this morning, Matt Braynard said his evidence has been submitted to Congress for consideration.

Update:

– VIP findings have been submitted as part of the package for consideration by the US Congress and Senate.

— Matt Braynard (@MattBraynard) January 4, 2021

It’s clear that the President’s plan is to present evidence of election fraud to Congress and ask them to act on it. Once they’re confronted with evidence (knowing that the world is watching), will GOP Senators change their minds?

The optics of VP Pence rejecting electors prior to allowing objections (as I proposed in my previous post) are horrible. Trump would forever be accused of forcing his Vice-President to steal the election. Rather than having Pence reject electoral votes at the outset of the joint session, what if the plan is to force GOP Senators to admit that fraud happened and compel them to oppose the votes of electors? That approach would take the responsibility off Pence and put it on the Senate.

I realize that this scenario assumes that unreliable people will do the right thing, but when evidence of election fraud was presented to the Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee last week, it compelled the committee (Democrats and Republicans alike) to unanimously vote in favor of an audit of Fulton County’s absentee ballots.

In a country with a free press, you would know:

1. The Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report demonstrating the vote was stolen from @realDonaldTrump.

2. The vote was unanimous and BIPARTISAN to audit Fulton County’s Absentee ballots.

3. And to de-certify Biden.

— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) December 31, 2020

This scenario does not take into account the actions of the Democrat-controlled House, but depending on how you interpret the Electoral Count Act, it would be possible to reject the votes of electors with the agreement of only one chamber of Congress. Mike Pence would be the one to make that determination.

Politicians tend to look out for themselves. There is a selfish reason why GOP Senators might reject electoral votes. If they did, they could take credit for exposing election fraud and act like they heroically saved Trump.

It’s worth noting that the President is currently trying to get Republican Senators to object to electoral votes. This seems to be another hint at the plan for the 6th.

The “Surrender Caucus” within the Republican Party will go down in infamy as weak and ineffective “guardians” of our Nation, who were willing to accept the certification of fraudulent presidential numbers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2021

This theory seems more in line with statements Pence and the President have made recently. I’m not making a prediction about what will happen on the 6th. I’m only providing possible scenarios based on my analysis of the law, historical precedent, and statements made by those involved in the process.

As always, please keep the President and his staff in prayer.

The post A New Theory About Counting the Electoral College Votes appeared first on Praying Medic.

Will Trump Play the Pence Card?

Over the last month, I’ve provided a number of possible paths for President Trump to be re-elected. This article will explain the simplest, most direct, constitutional path to the President’s re-election and the reasons why some paths are, in my opinion, less viable.

Opinions vary on if, and how President Trump might pull off a win when the electoral college votes are read in the joint session of Congress on January 6th. Differences of opinion are generally based on which statutes are accepted as authoritative and which legal precedents are cited. The likely behavior of certain individuals has not been given much consideration by political pundits, but the behavior of certain people makes some paths less likely to succeed.

Some people hope that a court will issue a favorable ruling that decertifies the electoral votes of certain states or overturns the results of an election. While these pursuits are noble, judges appear to be unwilling to take action on them. In the end, I doubt the courts will play a major role in the outcome of this election.

Efforts are underway to pressure state legislators to reverse the actions of governors who certified electors following illegal or fraudulent elections. There is certainly evidence of election fraud and some states violated state or federal law (or the constitution) in the way they administered their elections. State legislators should take action, but it is unknown if they will, and those who are trying to are opposed by people who are trying to run out the clock. I don’t think we can depend on state legislators to make an impact on the final outcome.

Some believe the best chance for the President to be re-elected is to have members of the House and the Senate object to the votes of electors on January 6th. The electoral count act (3 U.S. Code § 15) makes provision for this. Once an objection to a state’s electoral vote is made and seconded, the House and Senate separately debate the objection, and a vote to either sustain or overrule the objection is taken in each chamber.

To sustain an objection in the Senate, nearly every Republican must vote in favor of it, including never-Trumpers like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski. Only a couple of Senators have so far expressed interest in considering objections to electors. I doubt that an objection would be sustained in the Senate. And as hard as it will be in the Senate, it will be more difficult in the House due to the Democrat majority. While I think that encouraging Senators and Representatives to object to electors is a goal worth pursuing, but I’m not convinced that approach will succeed. There is also an effort underway to pressure members of Congress to hold hearings on election fraud, but there seems to be little interest on the part of congressional leaders.

Any of the above tactics could be successful, but I think the odds of any of them succeeding are small, because of the predictable behavior of the individuals involved.

Donald Trump knows that the decision-makers in these efforts are pitted against him. Do you think he would trust his presidency and the fate of the nation to people that he knows are working against him?

I think not.

I think, rather than putting his fate in the hands of people he can’t depend on, he would maintain control of the process to the greatest degree possible.

An important election precedent was set in the 1960 Presidential race between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. In a close race in the state of Hawaii, Nixon was declared the winner. In order to meet the “safe harbor” deadline of Dec 13th, Hawaii’s Governor signed a certificate of ascertainment for Nixon’s electors.

Hawaii’s popular vote was disputed, and a judge ordered a recount. On the day when electors had to cast their votes (Dec 19th), Kennedy had taken the lead, but the final tally was weeks away. Because the outcome was not settled, electors for both Nixon and Kennedy met in the capitol that day and cast their votes.

On December 28th, the recount was finished, and Kennedy was declared the winner in Hawaii. The governor sent a revised certificate of ascertainment dated January 4th, 1961, just two days before Congress met to count the votes.

In the rare case when a state submits two slates of electors, the Electoral Count Act provides guidance on how to determine which slate should be accepted. The process provided is confusing and contradictory. Depending on how you interpret the instructions, several options are available.

During the 1960 election, Richard Nixon as Vice-President presided over the count in Congress. Here is how he resolved the dispute (source):

In order not to delay the further count of the electoral vote here, the Chair, without the intent of establishing a precedent, suggests that the electors named in the certificate of the Governor of Hawaii dated January 4, 1961, be considered as the lawful electors from the State of Hawaii. If there be no objection in this joint convention, the Chair will instruct the tellers-and he now does-to count the votes of those electors named in the certificate of the Governor of Hawaii dated January 4, 1961-those votes having been cast for John F. Kennedy, of Massachusetts, for President and Lyndon B. Johnson, of Texas, for Vice President.

Nixon made a unilateral decision to disqualify his own elector’s votes while submitting only the votes for Kennedy. This was done, despite the fact that his electors were the only ones with a certificate that met the safe-harbor deadline. Nixon said he did not intend to establish a precedent, nevertheless, he did establish one. In doing so, he demonstrated the authority exercised by the officer who presides over a joint session of Congress as they count the votes of the electoral college. Some argue that the Vice-President has limited authority over the vote-counting process, but he has the power to make discretionary decisions regarding procedural rules, as Nixon demonstrated.

This year, no less than five, and by some accounts, as many as seven states have submitted two slates of electors. Although the media insist that only Biden electors are valid for these states, the Electoral Count Act says:

…all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened.

Even if a certificate from an elector was not certified by the state’s governor, it is supposed to be considered.

Vice-President Mike Pence will preside over the vote count in Congress on January 6th. He has received intelligence briefings on election fraud and interference that members of Congress haven’t. He must decide which, if any, votes from disputed states will be rejected. A number of states violated the law in the manner in which they conducted their elections. In some states, fraud was committed. Pence has more detailed information on these matters than anyone involved in the process. He could reject the electoral votes—both those for Biden and those for Trump—based on his knowledge of fraud and interference.

For example, Pence could reject all electors from the states of Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If he did, the resulting electoral vote count would be 227 votes for Joe Biden and 232 for Donald Trump. There is no provision in the Electoral Count Act (or any other law) stating that the number of votes needed to win (270) must be reduced if some votes are rejected. Pence could declare Trump the winner by a simple majority of the votes that were counted.

 

 

Let’s look at a second scenario. If Pence did not feel he had a strong enough reason for disqualifying the votes of Arizona and Nevada, he could reject the votes of all electors from Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania on the grounds that these four states expanded vote by mail in contravention of state and federal law. The rejection of votes from those four states would leave Biden with more votes than Trump (244-232), but both candidates would fall short of the 270 votes needed to win.

Because there is no rule indicating that the number of votes needed to win changes if some votes are disqualified, Pence could declare that both candidates would still need 270 votes to win. He could determine that since the 270 vote requirement was not met, a continent election must be held as prescribed by the 12th amendment.

In a contingent election, the House of Representatives would immediately take a vote to decide the next President. The vote in the House is one vote per state delegation. On January 6th, Republicans will hold a 26-21 state delegation majority over Democrats with three states tied.

The Senate would hold a vote to decide the next Vice-President. Republicans hold a 50-46 majority in the Senate with 2 seats controlled by third parties and 2 seats in Georgia on the ballot January 5th, the day before the electoral votes are counted.

In the contingent election, if the House voted along party lines, Trump would be re-elected. In the Senate, if Republicans maintained their majority, and if they voted along party lines, Pence would be re-elected.

These two scenarios put the outcome of the election in control of Trump and Pence to the greatest degree possible while minimizing the roles played by unpredictable people. This approach is constitutionally defensible, and there is historical precedent to support it. If I was President Trump, this is the path I would take.

There are concerns over what Trump’s opponents in Congress are likely to do. For that reason, the safest strategy is to avoid asking them to do anything risky. The risk to never-Trumpers is eliminated if Pence disqualifies electors from several states and either declares Trump the winner by a simple majority (scenario 1 above) or triggers a continent election (scenario 2). In the first scenario, never-Trumpers play no part. In the second, they would simply go along with the process Pence chose and blame him for the outcome.

Democrats would object if this were to happen. The only remedy available would be a lawsuit contesting the process. We’ve already seen how little interest the courts have in hearing election-related cases. Democrats might be angry, but they would have to live with the outcome.

There would likely be civil unrest if something like this were to happen, but regardless of which candidate wins, there are going to be unhappy people. If rioting got out of hand, I would expect Trump to mobilize the national guard to bring it under control.

I think all efforts should continue to get state legislators to rescind illegitimate electors. Attorneys should continue asking the courts for constitutional remedies. Members of Congress should be pressured to oppose electors from states that violated the law and hearings should be held to expose election fraud and interference. We don’t know which route will prove to be the most effective and I do not wish to discourage these efforts. The purpose of this article is to suggest that perhaps a plan is in place that hasn’t been made public—one that keeps much of the process under the President’s control.

p.s. Ivan Raiklin has suggested that today (December 23rd) is an important day for Vice-President Pence to take action.  3 U.S. Code § 12 says that if by the fourth Wednesday in December, the President of the Senate (Pence) has not received certificates of votes, he must contact states to receive them. I believe he has already received them. Whether he considers them to be valid is a matter to be decided on January 6th. I don’t think anything more is required of Pence between now and then, and I don’t think inaction on his part should be interpreted as indifference to the process.

The post Will Trump Play the Pence Card? appeared first on Praying Medic.

Ivan Raiklin – President Trump’s Path to Re-election

In addition to text, at the bottom of this post, there is a video featuring attorney Ivan Raiklin, who explains the legal theory behind a second term for President Trump.

There are many paths President Trump can take to be re-elected. Personally, I don’t think he would risk leaving the fate of his second term and the future of our nation in the hands of fearful judges or self-serving members of congress. If I were the President, I would find a constitutional path that allowed me to control the outcome to the greatest degree possible.

Because several states violated the law in the way they administered their elections, there is a case to be made that electors from these states—and their votes in the electoral college—should be disqualified. Vice-President Pence will be the presiding officer when both chambers of Congress meet on January 6th to count the electoral college vote. Pence could reject the electoral votes of any state that violated the law. If the Office Director Of National Intelligence makes public their report on election interference and if that report implicates Democrats or Joe Biden in election interference, it would give the public the information they need to support a decision by Pence to exclude the electoral votes of certain states. Per Catherine Herridge, ODNI hopes to have a declassified version of their report available to the public in January.

Currently, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona are accused of violating state or federal law, or the constitution. If three of these states have their votes rejected, neither candidate would win a majority of electoral votes. If that were to happen, the 12th amendment prescribes a contingent election in the House of Representatives for the President and in the Senate for the Vice President. In such a scenario, the Senate allows one vote per Senator. The House allows one vote per state delegation.

In January, Republicans will hold a 26-21 majority over Democrats in the House by delegation with 3 states tied (source). Republicans will also hold a majority in the Senate, regardless of the outcome of the Georgia runoff. If the election went to the House and Senate, and if members voted by party line, Donald Trump and Mike Pence would be re-elected.

Ivan Raiklin believes the election could take a different path, though it would conclude the same way. Rather than disqualifying electors and moving immediately to a contingent election, he argues that Mike Pence could allow members of Congress to object to the votes of electors and break the resulting tie between the House and Senate by taking a vote in the House by state delegation instead of by seat. If delegations voted by party line, the objection to the electoral votes of any state would be sustained by both chambers. If the votes from three states were objected to and sustained, neither candidate would receive 270 votes and a contingent election would occur. As explained above, in a contingent election, Trump and Pence would likely be re-elected.

The post Ivan Raiklin – President Trump’s Path to Re-election appeared first on Praying Medic.

The Senate Holds the Key to Donald Trump’s Re-election

In this post, I’ll describe what I believe is the most viable path for President Trump to be re-elected using provisions outlined in the Constitution, and federal and state laws that govern elections. (In addition to the written text of this post, a video version is provided at the bottom.)

This discussion centers on the Electoral Count Act of 1887. After this Act was passed, it was codified as 3 U.S Code Chapter 1, and several provisions were added. I’ve read the Act and a number of scholarly opinions on what it allows, what it prohibits, and what subjects it does not address. Most relevant to this discussion are sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act (which correspond approximately to sections 5-15 of the 3 U.S. Code Chapter 1). For a deeper dive into the history and application of the Act, Justice Stephen Siegel published an insightful 131-page article titled, The Conscientious Congressman’s Guide to the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

It’s helpful to remember that the Electoral Count Act is broken into several sections. Provisions contained in one section do not necessarily apply to other sections. Failure to consider this point has led some to come to erroneous conclusions about the mechanics of the electoral process.

Of interest to most readers is how electoral votes for Joe Biden might be disqualified, and if that would set up a situation where President Trump could be re-elected. Let’s begin our discussion by looking at section 4 of the Electoral Count Act.

Section 4

Section 4 of the Act provides rules as to how objections are to be made by members of Congress to the votes of electors on the day votes are counted (January 6th). It specifies that objections must be made in writing and must be signed by a member of both the House and the Senate. An objection is sustained only when both chambers of Congress agree to sustain it. If only one chamber of Congress sustains the objection, that elector’s vote is counted. With a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, it is unlikely that an objection by Republicans would be sustained since both chambers must vote in favor of it.

Section 2

Section 2 of the Act describes the process by which electors are to be chosen and it outlines the so-called safe harbor provision. The “safe harbor” provision can be seen as a conditional promise that Congress will not reject a state’s electors if disputes about their selection are resolved at least 6 days prior to the day electors vote. This year, electors voted on December 14th. The safe harbor period ended on December 8th. In order for a state to claim they met the safe harbor provision, disputes regarding electors would need to be settled by that day.

Section 2 permits a state to make a claim to Congress that they abided by all applicable laws when choosing and certifying their electors. A state is essentially asking Congress not to disqualify their electors on the premise that all laws were followed. Congress still reserves the right to reject a state’s electors if the state did not choose or certify its electors in accordance with the law. The state’s safe harbor claim would be rendered invalid if an unlawful process was used to choose or certify electors.

Violations of Law

Herein lies the problem for many states. Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania have been accused in court of violating state or federal law or the Constitution when they administered their 2020 elections, by which they chose electors. In response, these states have not denied that they violated the law. Their defense has been to demand that courts not overturn their unlawful elections because such a move would be unprecedented.

Section 2 of the Electoral Count Act requires states to conduct their elections lawfully. Any breach of the law in the manner in which an election is conducted or electors are chosen is grounds to question the validity of electors and their votes. If a state simply erred in administering its election, that would not be grounds to reject electors, But if fraud were evident or if officials knowingly violated the law, the entire election process is called into question and Congress would be justified in disqualifying that state’s electors.

Forensic Audits

Arizona’s largest county, Maricopa, has been ordered to conduct a forensic audit on its voting machines after the election was certified by the Governor. The safe harbor provision of section 2 is given by Congress as an enticement for states to resolve disputes before they certify their elections and seat their electors. Arizona did not resolve disputes regarding the choosing of its electors prior to the safe harbor day. In fact, Governor Ducey certified the election on the day there was a hearing where evidence of election fraud was presented. The fact that Arizona made no effort to investigate fraud invalidates its safe harbor claim, and Congress has grounds to reject its electors. Likewise, Antrim County Michigan was ordered to conduct a forensic audit after the state’s election was certified and evidence of fraud was uncovered. Michigan’s safe harbor claim is likewise invalid and Congress has grounds to reject its electors.

Any Time Is Fine

A careful reading of sections 2 and 3 of the Electoral Count Act reveals that there are no instructions as to how and when Congress can object to the choosing of a state’s electors when the objection is to the manner in which the electors are chosen.

Although it is true that a rule is provided governing objections in section 4, objections to provisions found in section 2 are not subject to the rules of section 4. Section 2 objections would be handled under the normal rules of Congress. For Congress to pass a bill, both chambers must vote in favor of it. If one chamber votes against it, the bill is not passed. The same rule applies to objections pertaining to sections 2 and 3 of the Electoral Count Act. For the vote of an elector to be counted, both chambers must agree that the vote should be counted. If one chamber votes to object to an elector, that elector’s vote is not counted. As long as the objection pertains to a section other than section 4, only one chamber’s vote is needed to disqualify electors.

If objections were made in the Senate to the electors of several states on the grounds that the election procedures violated state or federal law or the Constitution (conditions specified in section 2), and if Republicans voted by party line to sustain those objections, the votes of electors in those states would not be counted.

Sections 2 and 3 of the Electoral Count Act provide no rule as to how or when objections must be made, or when they must be voted on by Congress. If the Senate wanted to convene a special session tomorrow and vote on objections to electors, there is nothing to prevent them from doing it.

Alternate Electors Not Needed

A number of states have two sets of electors that sent certificates to Congress. One set of electors voted for Joe Biden and one vote for Donald Trump. In all cases, the Trump electors were not certified by the Governors of those states. The scenario I’m discussing doesn’t factor in two sets of electors. Donald Trump can be re-elected without them. The “dueling electors” scenario favors Biden and the Governors who certified those electors.

Counting the Vote

The President and Vice-President are chosen by a simple majority of 270 out of a total of 538 electoral college votes. Some have assumed that if a state’s electors were to be rejected, the total number of electoral votes would be reduced. If for, example, all 20 of Pennsylvania’s electors were rejected, some believe the total number of electoral college votes would be reduced by 20 to 518. Such a reduction would reduce the simple majority to 260 votes. There is no discussion in the Electoral Count Act or any other election law indicating that the total number of votes is to be reduced when a state’s electors are rejected. It would seem that the total number of votes remains at 538 (and the majority at 270) regardless of how many electors are rejected by Congress.

Joe Biden is currently claiming a total of 306 electoral votes. If he loses 37 votes due to electors being rejected, he would not have the 270 votes needed to win the election. Almost any combination of losses of three states for Biden would leave him short of 270 votes. For example, if Biden electors for Pennsylvania, Arizona and Michigan were rejected by the Senate, Biden would end up with 259 electoral votes—11 shy of the number needed. In this scenario, Donald Trump would also come up short of the number needed to win. If neither candidate has the required number of votes to be declared the winner, a “contingent election” is the next step.

If no candidate receives a majority of votes from the electoral college, the 12th amendment states that the House of Representatives is to take a vote to decide the next President and the Senate is to vote to decide the next Vice-President. The House vote is to be conducted with each state delegation receiving one vote. In the Senate, each Senator casts one vote. Currently, Republicans hold a majority of state delegations in the House. The vote in the House would likely re-elect Donald Trump. The vote in the Senate would likely re-elect Mike Pence.

All of this is based on the assumption that Republicans will maintain their majority in the Senate. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler will be on the ballot in Georgia’s January 5th run-off election. If they lose,  the already slim majority for Republicans gets even thinner, making it all the more important for them to be elected.

The Senate Holds the Key

The courts have in most cases refused to even consider claims of election fraud and administrative malfeasance. Republican Senators have an opportunity, and I would argue, an obligation to provide the remedy that the courts have refused to. The remedy is to reject the electors of states that did not follow the law.

Republicans control the Senate. They have the ability to sustain objections to electors without the help of the House when those objections pertain to sections 2 or 3 of the Electoral Count Act. There is no time-frame specified as to when objections must be made or voted on. The Senate and the Senate alone has the ability to prevent Joe Biden from being inaugurated. Mitch McConnell cannot say we have to accept Biden because nothing can be done. If Biden becomes our next President, the blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of a Republican Senate that chose to accept the results of a fraudulent election when a constitutional remedy was available.

My call to action:

Email and call US senators and insist that they reject the electors of any state where election laws were not followed.
Tell them to object to the safe harbor provision of section 2 of the Electoral Count Act.
Tell them section 2 does not require the House to agree with the Senate in sustaining an objection.
Tell them section 2 has no date specified as to when the objection is voted on.
If you know a U.S. Representative or Senator, send them a link to this post.

VIDEO

The post The Senate Holds the Key to Donald Trump’s Re-election appeared first on Praying Medic.

My Thoughts on Bill Barr’s Departure

Yesterday, President Trump accepted the resignation of Attorney General William Barr. People have asked me to share my thoughts on that matter, so here they are.

It could be that Barr’s resignation is the routine, expected end for a department head of an outgoing administration. Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, tendered his resignation, effective January 20th, as did other department heads. Perhaps there’s nothing to see here, but let’s dig a little deeper.

Six days after the election, on November 9th, President Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper and replaced him with Chris Miller. Within 24 hours, all the Undersecretaries of Defense and the Chief of Staff for the Secretary of Defense had been replaced with people known to be loyal to Trump. That move appeared (at least to me) to signal that Trump is not planning to leave the White House and that he felt a need to shore up his support at the Pentagon.

President Trump has vowed to fight the results of what he believes is a fraudulent election. His legal team and key allies are bringing lawsuits and working with legislators to allow the constitutional process to run its course. It seems the President has a plan for remaining in office. We don’t know all the details of the plan, but freedom-loving patriots are supporting that effort to its conclusion.

In the last month, the President has occasionally expressed his displeasure with AG Barr and the DOJ. During one of his last rallies before the election, the President chided the DOJ for refusing to indict Spygate conspirators like James Comey before the election. Since then, he has excoriated them for withholding evidence of the Biden family’s alleged crimes. If evidence of their crimes had been released prior to November 3rd, it would have changed the outcome of the election.

I want to preface my next statement by saying that I still believe John Durham’s investigation will result in the prosecution of bad actors in the FBI, DOJ, State Department, CIA, and other government agencies. However, when I put myself in the President’s shoes, I realize that come January, I will have been in office for four years. I’ve worked my butt off to make the country better while virtually nothing has been done to prosecute the people who tried to destroy me, my family, and this nation. If the President has lost faith in the FBI and DOJ, who can blame him?

If the President is convinced that he will serve another term, and if he has lost faith in the DOJ (my speculation), then Barr’s departure is likely not a routine resignation, but termination for cause. President Trump may have someone in mind that he believes can get the job done as Attorney General. But Barr’s firing could also signal a change of strategy in how POTUS intends to drain the swamp in his next term.

If Trump believes that the DOJ can’t be relied on to bring the deep state to justice, would he assign that task to the military?

Except in rare cases, civilians can’t be tried by military commission. If the President believed that the future of the nation was at stake, he could declare martial law. The declaration of martial law would close civilian courts. Law enforcement would become the responsibility of the military. The DOJ would be removed from the process.

I’m not advocating the implementation of martial law. Using the military to maintain the rule of law is the last resort for civilized nations. However, the U.S. is embroiled in an election scandal of mammoth proportions—the kind typically seen in third-world countries. Regardless of who is inaugurated on January 20th, half the nation will think the sitting President stole the election. The last time we experienced this degree of ideological division was during the civil war. All of this seems to point to a coming period of civil unrest. It’s impossible to say at this point, if civil unrest will, in fact, happen. If civil unrest happens, it’s impossible to predict how severe it will be or how long it will last.

Couple the possibility of civil unrest with the changes in leadership at the Pentagon and the removal of Barr at DOJ, and I can’t help but wonder if the President isn’t moving toward a military solution, or at least setting up a contingency plan. There is still time and there is certainly a long way to go before the election’s constitutional process has run its course. I pray that a non-military path provides the answer to our current dilemma, however, alternate plans appear to be in the works.

As always, please keep the President and our nation in prayer.

~PM

The post My Thoughts on Bill Barr’s Departure appeared first on Praying Medic.

Election Update – December 14, 2020

A review of some unexpected plot twists on the day the electoral college voted.

Related:

The Path to Inauguration – Election Update December 12, 2020

The post Election Update – December 14, 2020 appeared first on Praying Medic.

The Path to Inauguration – Election Update December 12, 2020

A timeline of events that are likely to play out between now and the inauguration.

Related:

Supreme Court Update – December 8, 2020

The post The Path to Inauguration – Election Update December 12, 2020 appeared first on Praying Medic.

Supreme Court Update – December 8 2020

 Observations on U.S. Supreme Court activities of December 8, 2020.

Related:

Will the Supreme Court Send a Message to State Legislators?

The post Supreme Court Update – December 8 2020 appeared first on Praying Medic.