would get 50 people at the event. President Trump, at just one rally, gets 50,000 people. President Trump increases votes with African Americans; increases votes with Hispanic Americans; won 19 of 20 bellwether counties; won Ohio by 8; Iowa by 8; and Florida by 3. President Trump got 11 million more votes than he did in 2016, and House Republicans won 27 of 27 toss-up races.
But somehow the guy who never left his house wins the election?
Eighty million Americans, 80 million of our fellow citizens, Republicans and Democrats, have doubts about this election; and 60 million people, 60 million Americans think it was stolen.
But Democrats say: No problem. No worries. Everything is fine.
We asked for an investigation. We asked Chairman Nadler, Chairwoman Maloney for an investigation. They said no. They wouldn’t want to investigate something that half the electorate has doubts about. It is just the Presidency of the United States.
Why? Why not one single investigation? Why not even one single hearing over the last 9 weeks in the United States House of Representatives? Why?
Because all the Democrats care about is making sure President Trump isn’t President. For 4½ years that is all they have cared about.
July 31, 2016, before he was elected the first time, Jim Comey’s FBI takes out the insurance policy; opens an investigation on the President based on nothing.
May 17, 2017, Bob Mueller was named special counsel. Two years they investigate the Russia hoax. Nineteen lawyers, 40 agents and $40 million of taxpayer money for nothing.
December 18, 2019, Democrat House Members vote to impeach President Trump based on an anonymous whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge, who was biased against the President and who worked for Joe Biden.
But none of that worked. As hard as they tried, none of that worked. They threw everything they had at him.
So what did they do next?
They changed the rules. They changed the election law and they did it in an unconstitutional fashion, and that is what we are going to show over the next several hours of debate.
The Constitution is clear, as Whip Scalise just said. State legislatures and only State legislatures set election law.
In Arizona, the law says voter registration ends on October 5.
Democrats said: We don’t care what the law says.
They went to a court, got an Obama-appointed judge to extend it 18 days. No debate, as Steve talked about. No debate. No discussion. They just did it.
Pennsylvania, same thing. Pennsylvania laws says mail-in ballots have to be in by 8 p.m. election day.
Democrat Supreme Court said: Nope. We are going to extend it.
Election day doesn’t end on Tuesday now. They took it to Friday. Extended the election 3 days; not the legislature, the partisan Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania law says mail-in ballots require signature verification.
Democrat secretary of state said: Nope. I am going to decide by myself that it doesn’t, for 2.6 million ballots.
Pennsylvania law says mail-in ballots can’t be processed until election day. Some counties said no. And you can imagine which counties they were. Democrat-run counties said no and allowed ballots to be cured and fixed before election day.
They did an end-run around the Constitution in every State that Republicans will object to today. Every single one. It was a pattern. It was their template. They did it in Arizona. They did it in Georgia. They did it in Michigan. They did it in Pennsylvania. They did it in Nevada. They did it in Wisconsin.
Yet, some of our Members say: Don’t worry about it. We shouldn’t do anything. Just let it go. It was just six States who violated the Constitution.
What if it is 10 States next time? What if it is 15? What if, in 2024, 2028, it is 26 States? What if it is half the States that do an end-run around what the Constitution clearly spells out?
We are the final check and balance. The authority rests with us, the United States Congress, the body closest to the American people, right where the Founders wanted it. We should do our duty. We should object to and vote for this objection to the Arizona electors.
Mr. Schiff. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
The Speaker. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schiff. Madam Speaker, a little more than 2 months ago, America performed an extraordinary feat. Under some of the most trying circumstances in our history, our fellow citizens conducted a free and fair election, vindicating our Founders’ belief once again, that we were capable of self government and a peaceful transition of power.
On November 3, the American people chose Joe Biden to be their next President by an enormous margin. The successful conduct of that election, among the most secure in American history, was not an accident. It was the result of the dedicated work of thousands of volunteers, canvassers, poll workers, electors, and State and local election officials.
When the conduct of any State election was challenged, the courts, through judges appointed by Democrats and those appointed by Republicans, heard unsubstantiated claims of fraud, found they had no merit, and said so.
But most important, the American people persevered. In the midst of the worst pandemic in a century, America had one of the most impressive elections in a century, with historic voter turnout.
Our fellow citizens did their civic duty. The question we face today is: Will we do ours?
That we are here, with a substantial number of our Members seeking to overturn an election is remarkable, tragic, and all too predictable, for it is the natural result of a locomotive set in motion months ago with a myth. For weeks and weeks, before, during, and after our election, a dangerous falsehood was propagated: That our election would be marred by massive fraud.
Never mind it was the same election which brought the very men and women to this Chamber who would challenge its results. What value has consistency when measured against ambition?
A former Senator from Georgia, remarking on a contested election over a century ago, said: “Able men, learned men, distinguished men, great men in the eyes of the nation, seemed intent only on accomplishing a party triumph, without regard to the consequences to the country. That is human nature. That is,” he said, “unfortunately, party nature.” Was he right?
We stand in a House which was once the place of giants. Have we become so small? Does our oath to uphold the Constitution, taken just days ago, mean so very little?
I think not. I believe, to quote our dear departed friend, Elijah Cummings, that we are better than that. I think Elijah would be proud that the debate here today is not between Democrats and Republicans, and that some Republicans, including the Republican leader of the Senate, remain devoted to the principle that we are a nation of laws, not individuals, let alone a single individual.
It may seem unfair to the new Members who have only just taken the oath for the first time, that they should be so soon tested with one of the most consequential votes they may cast, no matter how long they serve. But it is so, and none of us can shrink from that responsibility. Nor can we console ourselves with the intoxicating fiction that we can break that oath without consequence because doing so will not succeed in overturning the election. An oath is no less broken when the breaking fails to achieve its end.
We must be mindful that any who seek to overturn an election will do injury to our Constitution, whatever the result. For just as the propagation of that dangerous myth about this election made this moment inevitable, our actions today will put another train in motion. This election will not be overturned.
But what about the next? Or the one after that?
What shall we say when our democratic legacy is no more substantial than the air, except that we brought trouble to our own house and inherited the wind?
This isn’t the first time we have had a contentious election, and it won’t be the last. In 1800, John Adams lost a closely contested election to Thomas
