Omnibus Bill to Include Electoral Count Overhaul What Could This Mean for The Brunson Case

Schumer says he expects omnibus to include electoral count overhaul.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Schumer gave the clearest indication yet that the bill known as the Electoral Count Reform Act will be tacked on to the annual spending bill that lawmakers are rushing to finalize ahead of the holiday break.

“I expect an omnibus will contain priorities both sides want to see passed into law, including more funding for Ukraine and the Electoral Count Act, which my colleagues in the Rules Committee have done great work on,” the New York Democrat said.

The bill is one of the most substantial legislative reactions to the ransacking of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Citing ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, some of Trump’s backers argued that objections to the electoral vote count that day would have allowed Vice President Mike Pence to set aside some states’ results. Trump seized on those theories, urging backers to rally in Washington the morning of the count. They then stormed the Capitol.

The legislation would clarify that the vice president’s role in counting electoral votes is purely ceremonial, and that he does not have the discretion to set aside any state’s properly certified votes. It would also raise the threshold to hear objections to a state’s electors from just one member in each chamber to 20 percent of Congress.

But there is precedent for not certifying all states' results. As an example, Mark Levin said something to the effect of, "What if it was found that one state manipulated the vote to disenfranchise black voters. Would Pence still certify the election?" His point being that the vice president's job is not just to simply rubber stamp the results of every step, that's why congress gets together for the certification process to begin with. To assume otherwise is disingenuous. Not to mention this has happened before.

Supreme Court Considers Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Presidential Election.

Supreme Court Justices may well see these approaching storm clouds and conclude that the Court’s intervention is necessary to prevent larger civil unrest resulting from constitutional violations that are undermining public trust and confidence in the outcomes of both the 2020 and 2022 elections. When criminals break the law — state and federal statutes — to rig an election, we are dependent on prosecutions by law enforcement agencies that have sadly become politicized and complicit. When they break the Constitution — the supreme law of the land — to rig an election, the only recourse may be the Supreme Court or military tribunals.

As the Brunson lawsuit argues, all of Congress was put on notice prior to its January 6th vote by more than a hundred of its own members detailing serious allegations of election frauds and calling for creation of an electoral commission to investigate the allegations.

When the results of the 1876 presidential election were in doubt, Congress created a special Electoral Commission made up of five House members, five Senators, and five Supreme Court Justices to investigate. In contrast, in early 2021 Congress had nearly two weeks to investigate before the January 20th date of the Presidential Inauguration. Had Congress waited even just one more day to January 7th, they would have received the long-awaited ODNI report reflecting a split in the Intelligence Community and the DNI’s own conclusion that the People’s Republic of China had interfered to influence the outcome of the presidential election. As Dr. Barry A. Zulauf, the Analytic Ombudsman for the Intelligence Community, concluded at the time, the Intelligence Community shamefully delayed their findings until after the January 6th Electoral College certification by Congress because of their political disagreements with the Trump administration. This paints a picture of collusion and conspiracy involving members of Congress and U.S. intelligence agencies to coverup evidence of foreign election interference and constituting the crime of High Treason.

The Brunson lawsuit does not claim the election was stolen, merely that a large majority of Congress, by failing to investigate such serious allegations of election rigging and breaches of national security, violated their Oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic – an Oath also taken by Supreme Court Justices and members of the U.S. military.

The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns about a lawless January 6th Congressional committee, politicized federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and major constitutional violations intended to overthrow an elected government by manipulating the outcome of the presidential election.

While the Brunson case is on the Court's docket, the Uni-Party is moving to make what happened in 2020, where they abdicated their duty -- the law. The question then becomes, how will the court handle the Brunson case, after congress votes to abdicates their constitutional duty? It would be a hard sell to see them hold congress accountable after they have changed the law. They would have to hold them to account for the duties they didn't perform, before the law change.

This move guarantees that future election meddling and fraud will have even fewer backstops.

-- UPDATE --

Congress passes election reform designed to ward off another Jan. 6

Lawmakers have said over and over that they want to prevent another Jan. 6-style attack on the U.S. Capitol from ever happening again.

It took almost two years, but on Friday, as part of a government spending package, Congress passed the first federal elections legislation to that aim.

The omnibus spending bill includes a section that would reform the Electoral Count Act, a 1887 law that governs the counting of Electoral College votes in Congress.

For years, legal scholars have worried the law was poorly written and in need of clarification, and former President Donald Trump and his allies targeted the law's ambiguities in their attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

In the time after voting ended in 2020 and results were certified, Trump and his team argued that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the power to interfere with the counting of electoral votes because the law as it currently stands names the vice president as the presiding officer over the joint session of Congress where those votes are counted.

They passed it, making the job of the Vice President meaningless. There was a reason it was written the way it was, and there's historical evidence that it was used in that capacity before.

Leftists don't want any more impediments to their installed candidates.

What do you think?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"