Michigan House Speaker: Rudy Giuliani to Testify Wednesday to Michigan State House

[NightHawkeye]

From the "It's official", files: Michigan House Speaker: Rudy Giuliani to Testify to Michigan State House

President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani will testify in front of the Michigan State House, according to House Speaker Lee Chatfield.
...
“Michigan’s vote has been certified, but our ongoing inquiry into reports of election fraud will continue,” Chatfield wrote.
...
“The Michigan Legislature is the voice of the people, and we will not ignore the widespread reports of voting irregularities and errors. We must continue to examine the election and vote counting procedures to protect the integrity of free and fair elections and ensure one person means one vote for this election and future ones,” he said.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't tell us that it was going to be a comedy!

 

[NightHawkeye]

You didn't tell us that it was going to be a comedy!

You mean you actually thought legislative activity was something other than a clown show?

In all seriousness though, it remains to be seen how tomorrow's hearing will progress.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean you actually thought legislative activity was something other than a clown show?

In all seriousness though, it remains to be seen how tomorrow's hearing will progress.

It very rarely is a clown show, but when they fail, boy do they fail!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not quite sure what Rudy could testify about as he's not a witness. But... questions about his efforts could be interesting...

 

[WolfGate]

The Republicans have a ton of very promising 2024 Presidential candidates capable of leading the party and reclaiming the White House. With Trump's narcistic disgraceful endgame to his election loss, they have a wonderful opportunity to distance themselves from that and him, and instead focus on policy and spreading their philosophical message to voters. Instead, they seem to be trying very hard to screw that up and to become associated for years with Trumps fiasco.

I will give the Democrats credit. They let the socialists play in their party because they need the votes - just as the Republicans let the far right people play in theirs. But when it looked like Bernie might win their primary, they shut down the multiple traditional candidate race and joined behind Biden. The Republicans need to learn how to deal with poor candidates, and elected officials, like that.

 

[Vylo]

You mean you actually thought legislative activity was something other than a clown show?

In all seriousness though, it remains to be seen how tomorrow's hearing will progress.

Literally nothing will happen. Elections have been certified. That doesn't change.

 

[DaisyDay]

From the "It's official", files: Michigan House Speaker: Rudy Giuliani to Testify to Michigan State House

Are you sure this isn't from the "Next Wednesday" files?

“The Michigan Legislature is the voice of the people, and we will not ignore the widespread reports of voting irregularities and errors. .​

How peculiar that the "voice of the people" is trying to silence the actual people by disenfranchising them.

 

[Pommer]

Are you sure this isn't from the "Next Wednesday" files?

How peculiar that the "voice of the people" is trying to silence the actual people by disenfranchising them.

We really need an Irony button

 

[cow451]

You didn't tell us that it was going to be a comedy!

In other news, the Michigan legislature announced that James Gregory will be the opening act in today's session.

 

[cow451]

We really need an Irony button

Or at least a Permanent Press one.

 

[NightHawkeye]

How peculiar that the "voice of the people" is trying to silence the actual people by disenfranchising them.

On the one hand we have actual votes by registered voters.

On the other hand we have manufactured ballots from dead people, out-of-state residents and, well, those not even assigned names. All of these ballots disenfranchise legally registered voters.

Are you suggesting that we should accept any number of illegal ballots ... even though they dilute the vote of legally registered voters? Wouldn't that be similar to the 3/5ths compromise ... which was ruled unconstitutional many years ago? Why would anyone think the inner cities should have a larger voice than those living elsewhere?

 

[VirOptimus]

On the one hand we have actual votes by registered voters.

On the other hand we have manufactured ballots from dead people, out-of-state residents and, well, those not even assigned names. All of these ballots disenfranchise legally registered voters.

Are you suggesting that we should accept any number of illegal ballots ... even though they dilute the vote of legally registered voters? Wouldn't that be similar to the 3/5ths compromise ... which was ruled unconstitutional many years ago? Why would anyone think the inner cities should have a larger voice than those living elsewhere?

And your support for your accusations are...?

 

[DaisyDay]

On the one hand we have actual votes by registered voters.

And more of them voted for Biden than for Donald.

On the other hand we have manufactured ballots from dead people, out-of-state residents and, well, those not even assigned names. All of these ballots disenfranchise legally registered voters.

No, we have claims without good evidence, yet, of such which is not the same thing - fantasy vs actual.

Are you suggesting that we should accept any number of illegal ballots ... even though they dilute the vote of legally registered voters?

Yes, of course, as long as the number of actual, known illegal votes is less than the number needed to change the outcome then what the legal votes determined should absolutely stand.

Wouldn't that be similar to the 3/5ths compromise ... which was ruled unconstitutional many years ago?

No, it isn't similar in the least. The people who were counted as 3/5s were given no vote at all.

Why would anyone think the inner cities should have a larger voice than those living elsewhere?

Because there are more of them which supports the one person, one vote ideal. However, as the electoral college is currently apportioned, those of us in areas of greatest population density are given a smaller voice in the presidential and vice presidential election - which makes your question extremely flawed.

 

[Triumvirate]

Are you suggesting that we should accept any number of illegal ballots ... even though they dilute the vote of legally registered voters? Wouldn't that be similar to the 3/5ths compromise ... which was ruled unconstitutional many years ago? Why would anyone think the inner cities should have a larger voice than those living elsewhere?

Ha, I'm actually speechless for once at the brass neck someone would have to have to post this.

 

[cow451]

Ha, I'm actually speechless for once at the brass neck someone would have to have to post this.

Well, it's Wednesday, so....

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you suggesting that we should accept any number of illegal ballots ... even though they dilute the vote of legally registered voters? Wouldn't that be similar to the 3/5ths compromise ... which was ruled unconstitutional many years ago?

No it wasn't "ruled unconstitutional". It was overwritten by section 2 of the XIVth amendment:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

But there is a very important clause that was shamefully ignored in the post-Reconstruction South: "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, ..., is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, ..., the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

This part *should* have been used to lower the representation (and electoral votes) of states that denied voting rights, but it wasn't.

What the post-election suits are asking for is a denial of peoples' votes en masse in a way that if done by the states *should* result in less representation. And denying peoples' right to vote for electors for President is *EXACTLY* what these lawsuits are doing. Clearly the Constitution forbids this.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

You mean you actually thought legislative activity was something other than a clown show?

Clown show is pretty apt description of what is happening now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the one hand we have actual votes by registered voters.

On the other hand we have manufactured ballots from dead people, out-of-state residents and, well, those not even assigned names. All of these ballots disenfranchise legally registered voters.

Are you suggesting that we should accept any number of illegal ballots ... even though they dilute the vote of legally registered voters? Wouldn't that be similar to the 3/5ths compromise ... which was ruled unconstitutional many years ago? Why would anyone think the inner cities should have a larger voice than those living elsewhere?

Incorrect, on the other we have unsubstantiated claims of manufactured ballots . . .

Without evidence you lose.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Incorrect, on the other we have unsubstantiated claims of manufactured ballots . . .

Without evidence you lose.

There has been a disturbingly abundant amount of evidence.

We're just arguing over whether there was enough illegal voting to change the outcome.