Science Defies Politics

Updated on July 1, 2022: re-election of Trump could be certified by the joint session by 278 votes. See the subsection Possible Slates Correction

Here, the term “Dems” refers to the coalition of Big Tech and other oligarchs, overt racists, street thugs, and the broad Democrat electioneering apparatus. This is the structure of Democrat campaigns now. It does not include Joe Biden.

The Dems Narrative

The Democrat narrative, almost uncontested now, claims that Trump supporters invaded the Capitol on January 6 of 2021 to prevent the certification of Biden-Harris as the election winners. The Biden-Harris ticket had a lead in the slates of electors, certified by states’ executives. The spectrum of opinions then runs from Trump intentionally inciting the crowd to invade the Capitol to antifa and/or “the government” provoked the crowd.

The premise that disrupting the January 6 joint session of the Congress benefitted Trump is rarely questioned in the context of events of that day, even though Trump allies have stated that Trump was not interested in such a disruption. It is unfortunate because this premise is obviously wrong. If the joint session were disrupted on January 6 by Trump’s supporters, it could reconvene on January 7, with better security.

This premise relies on a myth – that the joint session of Jan 6, 2021 was just a formality. This myth was hammered in by the Democrat propaganda before and, especially, after the purported certification of Biden-Harris. Big Tech has been deplatforming people for opposing this myth, and there are calls to criminalize opposition to this myth.

This myth also flows from decades without any Presidential election disputes or when such disputes were settled in individual states before the slates of electors were sent to Washington. 2020 was different, and six states sent dueling slates of electors. The post-elections joint session of the Congress is designed to resolve such disputes. This process of electoral votes determination and counting is codified in detail by 3 U.S. Code Chapter 1 – PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES, specifically §§ 15-18, which implements the Amendment XII.  § 15 explains the procedure of lodging and resolving objections to certified slates of electors in length.

Prof. John Eastman explains the role of this joint session in his article Setting the Record Straight on the POTUS “Ask”. See also What is the Electoral College? in archives.gov.

The January 6 joint session was Trump’s best and the only chance to victory. Peter Navarro confirms: “it should be clear, why Stephen K. Bannon, myself, and Donald John Trump were the last three people on God’s good Earth who wanted to see violence erupt that January 6 day on Capitol Hill. For it was this violence that finally put an abrupt end to any hope the president had for taking back an election likely stolen from him” — Navarro, Peter. In Trump Time: A Journal of America’s Plague Year (p. 262). Kindle Edition.

This makes clear that it was the Dems, and not Trump, who were interested in preventing or disrupting the orderly conduct of the Jan. 6 session.

The balance of forces in Congress on Jan 6

Senate: Republican majority (53 R to 47 D)

House: Democratic majority (222 D to 213 R)

Chair of the joint session:  VP Mike Pence, R

President of the Senate: VP Mike Pence, R

Media Coverage: C-Span and more

Additionally:

President of the United States and the Commander in Chief: Donald Trump

Supreme Court: Conservative majority

VP Mike Pence was not only a strong Republican, but Trump’s running mate.

There is a caveat that many Republicans in the Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel, seemed not to side with Trump on the electoral objections. But even those who were not ready to stand with Trump in defeat, would have likely stood with him in victory, if the situation had changed.

Thus, balance of forces was as attractive for the Dems as a trial where the judge and most of the jury are friends of the victim is attractive for the murderer.

Trumps paths to victory

The following were possible developments for the January 6 joint session:

1. VP Mike Pence does not open the session, but sends the dueling slates of electors back to the states, in order for the state legislatures to figure out which slate of electors is legitimate. To this end, VP Pence postpones the joint session for 10 days. This was Trump’s preferred outcome.
2. Strong Republicans raise valid objections to every slate of Democratic electors, not only those with two competing slates. The only requirement for a valid objection is a signature of one Senator and one Representative. Debates and votes on each objection takes about 3 hours.
3. When the objection to the Arizona slate is debated by the Senate and House separately, Republicans can move to put the Senate into recess until 10am next day. Mike Pence would likely do that by the power of the President of the Senate. If it happens, the whole joint session in the recess. State slates are then debated one by one, alphabetically. Each objection must be resolved before going on to the next one. This process can be repeated for the next 4 days, without even getting to Georgia. This provides an effective delay of 5 days until January 11, when many state legislatures come back into session and would have authority to reexamine and recertify, if necessary, the electoral slates in question. This may have been sufficient for Trump’s victory. See below.
4. After getting to January 11, according to the previous paragraph, Republicans raise objections to several more electoral slates, gaining another day or two for Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

On January 5, Mike Pence intended to postpone the joint session (option 1). He changed his mind late that night and was visibly torn over that decision.

If the joint session would not have been interrupted, Republicans would have been able to make their case about the election’s fraud and, worse, intimidation, especially if they used option 3 and objected to most states with Democratic slates. Most people did not know about this option, thanks to the efforts of the MSM and Big Tech. The dramatic joint session would have been the national center of attention, and speeches by Republican Senators and Representatives would have been impossible to hide. Given the restrictions of twelve 5-minutes speeches per party, per objected slate, and considering that McConnell would give much time to quinzingers, this process would amount to 30 hours of televised information.

Peter Navarro: “by law, both the House of Representatives and the Senate must spend up to two hours of debate per state on each requested challenge. …  For the six battleground states, that would add up to as much as twenty-four hours of nationally televised hearings across the two chambers of Congress. Through these televised proceedings, we would finally be able to short-circuit the crushing censorship of the anti-Trump media and take our case directly to the American people.” — Navarro, Peter. In Trump Time: A Journal of America’s Plague Year (pp. 254-255). Kindle Edition.

Possible Slates Correction by Jan 11

The slates of electors in the controversial states could be corrected when the state legislature goes  in session.

State: session opens (electoral votes) (higher chamber, lower chamber, executive)

Wisconsin: Jan 4 (10 votes) (R, R, D)

Pennsylvania: Jan 5 (20 votes) (R, R, R)

Arizona: Jan 11 (11 votes)

Georgia: Jan 11 (16 votes) (R, R, R)

Michigan: Jan 13 (16 votes) (R, R, D)

Nevada: Feb 1

TOTAL: 232 + 46 = 278 votes for Trump

Assuming that Arizona is lost on January 6, Nevada and Michigan open legislative session too late, the reversal in certification of Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would resulted in 278 electoral votes and the victory for Trump. The key was to have these three states to act simultaneously and with assurance of Trump victory. Otherwise, they were too afraid of the violent Dems.

It is not clear whether Georgian legislature could act on the first day in the session, and how much trouble the Democrat governor and SOS in Wisconsin could make. Nevertheless, lawful conduct of the J6 session gave Trump pretty good chance, while its violent disruption left him no chance at all.

(added on July 17) For another take on this topic, arriving to the similar conclusion that Donald Trump had good chances on the joint session of the Congress, see What Could and Should Happen January 6th by Rick Green, a a constitutional expert and former Texas state representative. The link is to the archived pre-J6 version.

The Dems

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election by Molly Ball, demonstrates the existence, capacity, and brazenness of the Dems, and a collaboration between the electioneering white collars and street thugs. Not Trump, but the Dems desperately needed to disrupt the joint session of the Congress, in order to get Biden-Harris certified without many debates. The Dems were aware that the orderly conduct of the joint session of Congress, allowing objections to fraudulent slates would likely result in the certification of the Trump-Pence ticket.

Combining this understanding with the evidence, accumulated over the past 18 months, we can only come to one conclusion: the Dems engineered the events of January 6, 2021. They used their influence and control over: US Capitol police, Metro Police Department, Big Tech, left wing militias (including antifa), and MSM, to accomplish this. This conclusion perfectly explains the unusual behavior of the police, the absence of visible antifa and BLM, and other contradictions of other more popular hypotheses.

The current Dems’ witch hunt targets Prof. Eastman, Peter Navarro, and Steve Bannon for their opinion, not for any role they might have had in the alleged January 6 riot. The targeted Trump administration officials strictly pursued legal strategies, unlike the Democrat Shadow Campaign, described in the Molly Ball article.

The Dems had announced ahead of the 2020 elections that they would not accept Trump’s victory. In late 2019, they created an entity which they called Transition Integrity Project. It called the elections disrupted even if Trump had clearly won the majority of electoral votes. In August 2020, it published a paper Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Elections and Transition. One of the scenarios described was #3: Clear Trump Win (p.17):

“The third scenario posited a comfortable Electoral College victory for President Trump — 286-252 — but also a significant popular vote win—52% – 47%–for former Vice President Biden. The game play ended in a constitutional crisis, with threats of secession, and the potential for either a decline into authoritarianism or a radically revamped set of democratic rules that ensure the popular will prevails (abolishment of the Electoral College, making DC and Puerto Rico states, and other changes)”

They were planning to create a constitutional crisis. Part of the plan was to “provoke a breakdown in the joint session of Congress” and to hope that the military would be on their side (p.18):

“One of the most consequential moves was that Team Biden on January 6 provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden (based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors). Pence and the GOP refused to accept this, declaring instead that Trump was reelected under the Constitution because of his Electoral College victory. This partisan division remained unresolved because neither side backed down, and January 20 arrived without a single president elect entitled to be Commander-in-Chief afternoon that day. It was unclear what the military would do in this situation.”