House Dems Eye Changing the Rules AGAIN to Suit Their Power Grab Needs


It’s official, rules are what the Democrats say they are, and that’s that. Mike Pence might not have had the intestinal fortitude to unleash the Kraken on January 6, but contrary to his public denials, and all the screaming from liberal globalists, he did have a legal leg to stand on. Democrats are scrambling to erase it from the law books before someone tries it again.

Rules? Only when they benefit Dems

The tinfoil hat types have been convinced for the past year that the false-flag, FBI engineered, barbarian invasion of the Capitol Building went off right on “Q,” to disrupt the exercise of a rare and obscure principle buried in the constitutional election rules.

Nancy Pelosi’s hand picked inquisition of shaman-hunters suddenly came to the realization that Donald Trump’s advisers were right after all. That’s a crisis requiring immediate Deep State intervention.

Members of the kangaroo court investigating the Capitol riot “are preparing a push for changes to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 in order to help avert the possibility of another day like January 6.” Why? Because Trump was right and the rules say he can do what he tried to do.

“That law covers procedures for formally certifying the outcome of the presidential election.” Trump and his allies “wanted then-Vice President Mike Pence, in his role overseeing the certification proceedings, to block certain electoral votes.”

That’s some sneaky liberal wording. The plan was not for Pence to block anything directly, simply to enforce the existing rules. That was his only job that day. Lead the proceedings in accordance with the law. He was intimidated by Democrats who hounded him with misdirection and propaganda ahead of the event.

Once the barbarians breached the gates, any chance of exercising obscure principles went out the shattered window.

Legal justification

The problem, radically progressive CNN writes, is “the uncertain way in which the Electoral Count Act was formulated.” Meaning Trump was right.

That, they fear, “could provide an excuse for similar pushes in the future, since Trump has repeatedly claimed there to be some kind of legal justification for his pressure on Pence.” Well, well. It’s in the rules. There WAS legal justification for his pressure for the Vice-President to act like a patriot and do his constitutional duty.

Observers, the left-leaning outlet admits, “know that we came precariously close to a constitutional crisis, because of the confusion in many people’s minds that was obviously planted by the former president as to what the Congress’s role actually was.”

There must have been a basis since they want to change the rules now to close the loophole. Adam Schiff is terrified it won’t happen.

“There are a few of us on the committee who are working to identify proposed reforms that could earn support across the spectrum of liberal to conservative constitutional scholars. We could very well have a problem in a future election that comes down to an interpretation of a very poorly written, ambiguous and confusing statute.” It’s only confusing to Democrats.

The rules clearly allow “for objections to certain electoral votes to be raised by members of Congress during the certification process, and if at least one member from the House and one member of the Senate back the objection, then the matter moves to a vote. Congress can set aside certain electoral votes if a majority in each chamber agrees, raising the stakes of what’s at issue.” That’s all Trump was trying to do then. Obviously, it was legal. No insurrection, case closed.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here