rMoney finds that conscience like a visually impaired squirrel.

Image
“It would not be Congress’s job to second-guess the state’s appointment of its own electors. And it certainly would not be Congress’s job to let a sitting vice president — as Adams had been in 1796 or Jefferson in 1800 — determine the election’s outcome by deciding unilaterally whether or not to count a state’s electoral votes. Note that, Vice President Pence.” www.washingtonpost.com/…

President Trump and his supporters are trying to turn the Jan. 6 congressional session for counting electoral college votes into something that it is not and was never intended to be: a forum for litigating Trump’s claims of voter fraud.

Never mind that Trump has no evidence to support his assertion that massive fraud is what caused Joe Biden to win the popular vote in enough states for an electoral college victory. The critical point is this: Even if there were such proof, the Jan. 6 session is not the place to present it.
The Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 intended the Jan. 6 session to address a narrow question: Are the electoral votes received by Congress ones cast by electors the states appointed?
This limited inquiry requires Congress simply to authenticate the documents. Remember, these rules were formulated in the 19th century, when there was a realistic risk of counterfeit papers pretending to be official. Thus, the 1887 act requires a state’s governor to affix “the seal of the State” to the certificate confirming the appointment of electors.

www.washingtonpost.com/…