Prueba De Firma Fácil

How to sign proof

can you just share some specific examples of election fraud what what are some specific examples that informed this bold decision this audacious decision even after the riots to decertify the results you must have seen some concrete evidence well pam the things that i was not objecting to the election on behalf of was things like dominion voting machines changing ballots or these u-haul trucks pulling up filled with ballots for joe biden as president the thing i was objecting for is things like in like i said in the state of wisconsin particularly in the town of madison uh there was a an appointed official in that town who actually went against the will of the state legislature and created ballot drop boxes which is basically ballot harvesting that was happening in the parks but this was all litigated you you know that the trump campaign litigated all of this more than 60 cases and they lost either the cases were dismissed the trump campaign withdrew or they never brought a case because they didn't have the evidence to back it up indeed i believe specifically and this is the one that i debated on behalf of on the house floor in wisconsin that was never heard because they dismissed it because of standing now i don't believe that that is a concrete enough well there were three trump appointments okay so you have wisconsin but you never you ended up not actually voting against wisconsin it was just arizona and pennsylvania because you didn't have the senate votes but three trump appointed judge actually threw out these cases because of merit it was because of merit there were three trump appointed judges out of all of these judges and the more than 60 cases that were tossed out you keep talking about wisconsin i'm still not hearing any specific examples of fraud if you would just tell us what are the specific examples you saw of fraud because when you think of fraud you think of a vote you're slipping one past the election official or a vote was stolen somehow it didn't count did you see that specifically no pam and like i said that's not the reason i contested the election hold on so you wanted to throw out millions of votes without actually seeing any concrete evidence of fraud because that's what you were doing when you were contesting the election the intent there was throwing out millions of votes well i disagree with you on that point that was not my intent my intent was to hold up the constitution and setting up ballot drop boxes which is essentially ballot harvesting in wisconsin is unconstitutional because the state legislature said they didn't want that so you know more than the judge the trump appointed judge who said that who actually looked at that case before the election and dismiss the trump campaign's um argument that dropboxes are unconstitutional and if you would would you point to me and where in the constitution it says that dropboxes are unconstitutional i don't recall seeing that in the constitution no so the way that i believe it was unconstitutional is because in article 1 section 2 clause 1 of the constitution it states that only state legislatures will mandate the manner in which an election is conducted okay right we actually have that on the screen go ahead excellent but when you go into the state of wisconsin you see that the state legislature actually voted actively against having vote drop boxes there particular and then in the town of madison they decided to set them up anyways so you're making an obscure case on this other constitutional experts say look what this says right here this article 2 of the constitution says that the legislature can decide what dick takes the electors and they did decide before this election the states did decide that the plurality of the vote would dictate who who the electors are so that did actually that did actually happen um and i'm just i just want to also ask you what sort of research did you put in what kind of work did you put in before you decided to make this objection i'm just curious what you read did you actually go to any of the states to look at the voter fraud what kind of research did you put into this no so we hired three constitutional lawyers who looked into this for our for our campaign and then the findings that we had is that as you said i believe in the reading the constitution through the prism of original intent and i believe the original intent of the framers of the constitution was to make sure that the federal government can't exercise overreach and go into these states and dictate our laws of how to run elections so do you think the intent too was to throw out millions of votes because of a suspicion not even concrete ovens because of us evidence i should say just because of a suspicion do you think that that was what our founders intended well i'd act we do have concrete evidence that there were ballot drop boxes inside of wisconsin i don't have the white pages on me but i would be happy to send that to you right but i'm still i'm still curious because we still i'm still confused on the unconstitutionality of dropboxes because a trump appointed judge dismissed that argument before the election but if you would just answer my question so you said you had three constitutional lawyers what other work did you put in to actually looking at um whether there was fraud in this past election because as you know congressman and and you knew coming on the show look you you were you were spouting some really inflammatory uh claims after the election and before the january 6 riot okay you voted even after the riot to decertify results millions of votes so i'm just wondering what kind of work did you put into to making sure you were rock solid before making those claims and and deciding to do that yes ma'am so mainly it was going through having these these constitutional lawyers look into the state of wisconsin uh the people that were actually supposed to try the case and then looking at their evidence and we presented that to the american people a significant portion of the american people agreed with it i agreed with it myself and i believe that it was in a constitutional infraction and so that's why i oppose the election now you keep bringing up that i did it even after the january sixth insurrection which again i think is dis despicable and i absolutely condemn uh but the people who changed their vote because of that i believe they were doing it because of political expedience either either if they were going to contest or if they weren't going to contest the actions of january 6 do not change what happened in the november election and i believe what happened in wisconsin was unconstitutional this is cnn's pamela brown holding freshman republican lawmaker madison cawthorne's feet to the fire and demanding actual proof any proof to back up his vote to block certification of the election and ultimately prevent joe biden from taking office and the way that cawthron dissembles goes to show that these people never actually bothered to find any legitimate justification they just decided they were entitled to winning election that they lost now clearly republicans like hawthorne have been scrambling to try and retroactively legitimize their efforts to overturn the election in their desperation to not look like the seditious hacks that they are and so for cawthorne he's decided that the excuse he'll land on is that the manner in which dropboxes were installed in wisconsin was unconstitutional that's the sticking point for him you see he swore an oath and he knew that the founding fathers the framers of the constitution would be rolling in their graves that people could safely vote during a pandemic and so that's why he decided to stop the certification of a duly elected president he did it not for trump or to raise his own profile he did it for james madison in reality while madison cawthorne has unilaterally decided to be the voice of the framers the issue of dropboxes in wisconsin was already adjudicated a federal judge in milwaukee judge brett ludwig a trump appointee heard this case wherein trump's team accused a group of state and local election officials of violating state law by expanding the manner in which absentee ballots were received and processed during the pandemic and unlike other judges ludwig didn't dismiss for lack of standing he actually decided to hear the case and judge on the merits he held a day-long hearing on the matter and yet after actually hearing the case he had not only dismissed it but did so with prejudice meaning trump wouldn't have been able to refile he wrote this court has allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case and he is lost on the merits and despite madison cawthorne unilaterally declaring himself the arbiter of all things legal the trump-appointed federal judge said that wisconsin's election officials had followed state law and that even though they instituted changes like allowing dropboxes for absentee ballots the moves were not illegal and officials used acceptable ways to implement the law and as if that wasn't clear enough judge ludwig then went on to note that the trump campaign was aware of these changes months before they were put in place and should have challenged them then instead of waiting until trump lost to suddenly decide that they were unconstitutional it's almost like the judge realized and and bear with me here that this wasn't actually about the legality of dropboxes but was rather just a pretext to try and overturn election results that they didn't like using any excuse humanly possible imagine that the judge ended with this for all of the madison cawthrans out there who apparently needed to see it written in black and white this is an extraordinary case a sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for re-election has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed election administration issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred in his reply brief plaintiff asks that the rule of law be followed it has been but hey thank goodness we have madison cawthorne who will fight for the constitution even when the states and the judges apparently all got it wrong evidently he is the lone person in government who's quote defending the constitution catherine then says that he moved forward with his decision to object to the results because he's a constitutional originalist and the constitution states that the federal government can't go into the states and dictate laws which is why he as a federal lawmaker supported disenfranchising millions of voters from four states that weren't his i mean this is beyond parody he's not even a representative of any of the states he tried to overturn the election results in and yet as a federal official he decided that the citizens of those states shouldn't have a voice all while making the argument that the federal government shouldn't go into the states and dictate laws yeah no makes total sense so look we could go on all day debunking kawthorne's individual arguments but what's beyond clear is that this was never about defending the constitution it was never about protecting the states it wasn't about the rule of law it was about trying to keep trump in office and then reverse engineering some tepid excuse to defend himself once the whole plan went south people like madison cawthorne began his political career attempting to subvert the will of americans so he can try this whole redemption tour thing all he wants but we know better he is as seditious as donald trump and that will always be his legacy while you're here please check out my podcast no lie with brian tyler cohen i take a deep dive into the top stories of the week and i also interview major players in the world of politics like kamala harris adam schiff nancy pelosi pete butterjudge katie porter al franken cory booker jamie harrison mary trump and many more again that's no lie with brian tyler cohen available anywhere you listen to podcasts