Live from Music Row Tuesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks to the newsmakers line.
During the third hour, Brooks discussed his motivation and commitment to filing an objection come January 6 when Congress reconvenes to count the electoral college votes. He hinted that several senators and congressmen will be joining him in the double digits and urged all American citizens to contact their states’ senators and congressman demanding they protect the United States voting system.
Leahy: Joining us on the newsmaker line Congressman Mo Brooks from an Alabama Republican. Welcome, Congressman Brooks.
Brooks: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today.
Leahy: So you have said publicly that when Congress convenes on January 6 to count the Electoral College votes you are going to file an objection. Is that still the case?
Brooks: Absolutely. I am persuaded by overwhelming and compelling evidence that if we only counted lawful votes cast by eligible American citizens Donald Trump won the Electoral College by a sizable margin and as such should be re-elected president of the United States.
Leahy: Well, I personally agree with you. Turns out that the state of Texas agrees with you. You saw the lawsuit they filed last night, right just before midnight. You probably are familiar with that.
Brooks: No, I’ve not seen it. The lawsuits are being sprinkled all over our country in an effort to stop the voter fraud and election theft that has occurred to an unparalleled degree in American history during this election cycle. Unfortunately and for emphasis, unfortunately, our judicial system is ill-equipped to handle this type of litigation.
But fortunately, the writers of our United States Constitution foresaw these problems and have it mandated in the United States Constitution that Congress, not the federal courts, not the Supreme Court but that Congress is the final judge, jury, and arbiter of all federal election contest to include those for Congress, those for the U.S. Senate and the presidency.
Leahy: Well, it’s interesting because that lawsuit filed late last night just before midnight by the state of Texas argues that the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the electors’ clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. That case I think has merit if the Supreme Court chooses to take it up.
And they might. The argument they make there is very similar to the argument you make. My question for you Congressman Brooks is this. Under the Constitution, you need for the joint session of Congress that will be held on January 6 to decide whether to accept whatever the electors present at that time from the different states. You need a member of the United States Senate to join you. How’s that going?
Brooks: That is correct. I was asked to meet with and did meet with a number of Senators last night. About eight or 10 of them. I would encourage the people of the great state of Tennessee that if you also believe as I do that the socialist Democrats are working as hard as they can to steal illegally this presidential election, then please contact, write, and email your United States senators and United States congressman and demand that they protect the sanctity of America’s voting system that is the bedrock of our Republic. That’s the way to get action. And I’m talking about your new congressmen and senators, those who will be sworn in on January 3. They will be the ones who vote on January sixth. They will be the ones who can join me in objecting to prevent this election theft.
Leahy: So Congressman Brooks, tell us, just you and me talking here when you met with those eight United States Senators any one of them could raise this objection. How well did they listen to your argument? And what do you think the odds are that any of those eight will join you in this objection on January 6?
Brooks: Well, they listened to everything I had to say. Unfortunately, the amount of time allotted to me to say what needed to be said was inadequate to cover all of the legal issues and the factual grounds for believing that this is the most massive election theft and voter fraud in the history of the United States of America. Hopefully, they will do their own homework. As it is also the case in the House of Representatives.
Some of our election officials, senators, and congressmen are just now figuring out that we have the final say on who wins or loses this presidential race. Again, it’s not federal courts. Now federal courts have their role. But if we decide differently than the Supreme Court are say under the United States Constitution the 12th Amendment and elsewhere trumps whatever occurs in federal court. So we have absolute authority to make this decision. And I urge Tennessee voters to become involved and encourage their congressmen and senators to join in this fight or else we lose our country to socialism.
Leahy: So let me ask you this. As we click through and I am here in the studio we are looking at when this has happened in American history previously. Apparently, in 2005, Congress had in a joint session when a member of the House and a member of the Senate brought up objections. They discussed it and apparently when they went forward with the election of George W. Bush at that time.
Also apparently it happened in 1968. My question to you is, has ever in American history Congress exercised the right to reject electors based upon this process outlined in the Constitution where one member of the House and one member of the Senate can object to the counting of the electors?
Brooks: Probably the closest example, which was a slam-dunk case was in 1876. The election of Rutherford B. Hayes. He’s a Republican who held a one-vote majority over the Democrat nominee and the Electoral College. There were three states whose elector slate was challenged. Three states in the South. Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina, allegedly voted Republican.
Now keep in mind 1876 was right after the war of northern aggression (Leahy chuckles) where the northern armies invaded the southern states and destroyed the southern economy. And we’re still occupying the southern states as late as 1876. So it was incredible and unbelievable that a southern electorate would vote for a Republican candidate for president given that the Republicans were the ones who initiated the war between the states.
So there was an election contest. Rutherford B. Hayes was going to lose that but he cut a deal with the Democrats. He said he would remove the federal troops and end reconstruction in the south if they would preserve the presidential election in his favor.
The Democrats believed that was a reasonable exchange because they were concerned that they could not end reconstruction or remove the occupying forces through Congress because one branch of Congress was controlled by the Republicans and one was by the Democrats.
And so Rutherford B. Hayes agreed to that settlement and as a result, he was elected president of the United States. But if he had not agreed then he would have lost that election because of the fraudulent votes that were submitted in the Electoral College on behalf of Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana.
Leahy: Very interesting. Now my question to you is this. How do you determine if you got a senator to join you in this objection? Does the joint session of Congress vote as a whole? Are there 535 votes and do you have to get a majority? How does voting take place then?
Brooks: Under the law, if there is an objection by one congressman, which I’m willing to do and they are a lot of other congressmen that feel the way I do who will join me okay. So I’m not doing this solo. And if one senator joins us then we immediately split into two different bodies. The Senate goes to the Senate side. The House remains in the House chamber where all this is taking place.
We have a limited two-hour debate. And then by law, there is a mandated vote on whether to accept or reject the Electoral College submission of any state. In the Senate, the vote is by a majority. And Vice President Mike Pence if there’s a tie he can break that tie which is kind of interesting because he’d be voting for himself and Donald Trump.
And in the House, there is an open question as to what the winning vote standard is under the 12th Amendment. If you are electing a president, which is the burden of the House of Representatives when no presidential candidate gets a majority of the electoral college we do not vote a majority of 435 Congressman.
We vote a majority of 50 states. And right now the Republicans are the majority in 27 state delegations. The Democrats are in the majority in 20 state delegations with the other three in a 50-50 tie. That’s the methodology used and we have a majority and we elect the president of the United States by rejecting these electoral college votes that are shameful and fraudulent.
Leahy: Laying this out on January 6 joint session of Congress, if under the Constitution you and other members of the House raised objections to the electors from certain states and if one Senator raises objections, the House is separate. You’ve got the House of Representatives which as you point out each state gets one vote. There are 27 GOP delegations where there’s a majority. Presumably, in the House, you would get all those votes.
In the Senate, I guess it’s 50-48 now and there will be an election in Georgia. I think it’ll be contested and probably or maybe Kelly Loeffler still votes is either 50-48 or 50-49 at that time. What happens if the House votes yes we want to get rid of those electors from those states that put Biden over the top? We want the electors that put Trump over the top. What if the Senate rules differently? What happens then?
Brooks: In order to reject a state’s Electoral College submission both the House and the Senate must concur. Now, let me emphasize something about the vote in the House. Before we ran out of time in the prior segment I mentioned that the vote by states option in the 12th Amendment logically would apply to something very similar, which is whether to accept or reject Electoral College votes.
I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will argue that in the House it’s a majority of 435, not a majority of the state delegations as stated in the 12th Amendment. So that will be a legal battle that will have to be fought and resolved in order to determine which side wins this fight in Congress.
Leahy: That’s interesting. My guess would be I think that your vision and your view probably has greater legal credibility. That’s just a guess. I’m not an attorney and I don’t play one on the radio. Clint Brewer is in the studio and has a question for you Congressman.
Brewer: Thanks, Mike. Congressman, just setting aside the Xs and Os of the legal strategy and the legalities of what the process requires you weren’t given a lot of or as much time as you wanted in front of the Senators and we’ve seen a trickle of House and Senate members recognizing Joe Biden as the president-elect publicly. Are you concerned that maybe at the higher levels of power in this country on the Republican side that maybe some of their appetite for this fight is waning or is less than?
Brooks: I believe that the appetite for this fight is growing. Keep in mind that the normal reactions of citizens and election officials are just to accept the real election results as their first stated. Now people are starting to understand the depth of the voter fraud and election theft that the Socialist Democrats have engaged in to try to steal the White House from the American people.
And I can go into what I believe is overwhelming and compelling evidence of voter fraud and election theft if you wish. But I am absolutely persuaded without any doubt that we have had massive voter fraud and massive election theft efforts by the Socialist Democrats. And we can either in Congress ratify voter fraud intellectual theft or we can fight it and demand the states do better. I’m in the column of demanding that the states do better no matter the effect that might have on the 2020 elections.
Brewer: Do you feel the appetite for the fight is growing with just the grassroots or is it getting traction in the Senate and in the House? Or is there a bifurcation thereof the energy? Is there you know a difference in how people at the grassroots feel versus how your colleagues feel?
Brooks: There is a trickle-down effect. And at the top are the voters. The voters have to express to their congressman and their senators a demand for fair and honest elections. And that means a demand for repudiation of the voter fraud and election theft that just happened. If there is an adequate demand and an organic revolution amongst American citizenry that demands that senators and congressmen act accordingly and that they stop this voter fraud election theft, that’s when you will see senators and congressmen jumping all over this like a duck on a June bug.
Senators and congressmen like to hold their offices and they won’t if they alienate the voters who sent them to Washington D.C. So the success or failure effort is solely dependent on whether American voters are just going to accept this as the new life voter fraud and election theft that undermines our Republic.
Or are they going to fight for our country, for our Republic, and for our election system that is the bedrock of all we are? I urge them to fight and I urge them to demand from their senators and their congressman support for this effort to straighten up our election process so that we get an honest count. And that’s the only way it’s going to work.
Leahy: Have you asked Senator Ted Cruz a Republican from Texas if he would be willing to join you on January sixth at the joint session raising objection to the electors from these disputed states?
Brooks: I am hesitant to identify the Senators that I have spoken with because I don’t want them to be pushed into a public statement before they have all the evidence. So I am going to let all of those Senators, the ones I met with last night and elsewhere, to have time to digest and let them decide at the appropriate time what public statement they’re going to make. In this instance, time is on our side because time means greater awareness of how bad this voter fraud election theft is by everyone.
And time will result in American citizens contacting their senators and congressmen in order to exert the persuasive influence that they have as the employer and bosses of those senators and congressmen. So I’m not going to push anyone into public taking a stance when they have not yet had time to ponder and sift through all of the evidence and all of the law that controls this circumstance.
Brewer: Congressman, without violating any of what you just wanted to, you know, how you want to run it with the senators, can you at least share maybe of how the senator in your own backyard feels? Have you spoken to Senator-elect Tuberville about this?
Brooks: Again, I’m not going to identify any senator or any congressman. They should as a matter of deference have the right to publicly make their own statement when they feel comfortable doing so. Now there are some congressmen and congressman-elect who have made public statements.
Leahy: And they are joining you in this?
Brooks: They are joining us in this. We have double figures right now.
Listen to the full third hour here:
– – –