Media tries to drag Biden over the finish line

We were in a Sportsbar over the weekend, and the TV screen dialed to CNN had a headline on the crawl to the effect that Joe Biden is declared President.  Huh?  Since when does the media declare the winner of a Presidential election?  Later on Saturday evening, Greg Gutfield opened his show by making jokes about what a Biden presidency would do.  So he was framing the question in terms of a probable Biden Presidency – as in a done deal.  Nuts.  To frame the questions that way is to give up on Trump’s re-election, to fall victim to the media propaganda to take the air out of our tires, so to speak.  We changed channels. 

On Sunday, many bloggers and commentators enumerated the procedural steps involved in a contested election.  We all know that the respective Secretaries of State have first to certify the vote counts.  Some of those SOSs may be reluctant to certify tallies they know to be fraudulent.  So that’s one potential check on the process.

Clarice Feldman at American Thinker has more and is, as usual, one of the best:  

Apparently, they are under the impression that [the media] decide election results. They don’t. On December 14, electors chosen by state legislators cast their votes. No one else but the state legislators have that right. (Article II, Sec. 1,§2 of the Constitution). Certainly not the press, nor state boards of elections, secretaries of state, governors, or courts.

If they have reason to believe the elections in their states were unlawfully conducted and the results fraudulent, they can act to override them. (You can see a detailed history of this section of the Constitution in this fine article by Daniel Horowitz.) The Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania  legislatures are majority Republican. At first glance these states -- particularly the precincts in Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia -- are the most suspect.

Is there ample evidence of fraud sufficient to have altered the will of the legal voters in these states? It sure looks that way.

. . .

If the [Pennsylvania Supreme Court] Court had applied the Constitution, then we wouldn’t have this mess, for it’s clear under Article 1 Sec. 4, cl 1--that the Pennsylvania court had no constitutional power to change the “times, methods, and procedures of elections.” 

That provision specifically applies to the election of senators and representatives, both of whom were on the ballots in question.  And what if there is no clear winner by Inauguration Day?  We’ve been reading a lot about how Mm Pelosi would become President, as the Speaker of the House is third in the line of succession,  But Ms. Feldman again explains:

What if There’s no Winner Declared by Inauguration Day?

I’ve seen lots of assertions that in such a case Nancy Pelosi will be the interim president. Nope. Should that eventuality occur, the House votes for an interim president and the Senate for an interim vice president. (The House votes are by state -- one vote each -- and the Republicans hold a majority of 26 states. Our founders were geniuses. Never forget that.)

As Ms. Feldman closes:  “Never give up the good fight. Never hamstring your will to fight on with pessimism.”

Her article is here.

# # #