In this American Thought Leaders video from 19 November 2020, U.S. Representative Mel Brooks not only considers the procedures that might be used if the U.S. House might play a central role in selecting our next president — he also explains why he has such a passion for rooting out election fraud.
This is how the interview started:
|Brooks||In the United States Congress, we control who the President of the United States is. The courts do not.|
|Jekielek||Based on the U.S. Constitution, there is a scenario in which the U.S. House of Representatives is the one that ultimately picks the next President, says Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks. And each state would have only a single vote.
In this episode, we sit down with Congressman Brooks to discuss the allegations of election irregularities and voter fraud and what they’ll mean for the 2020 election.
This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.
|Jekielek||Congressman Mo Brooks, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.|
|Brooks||My pleasure. Thank you.|
|Jekielek||So, Congressman Brooks, you have been on the floor of the House talking about election integrity. I think, at the time that we’re filming right now, you’ve been out there twice. Why are you doing this? Why is this so on your mind? Tell me more.|
|Brooks||Well, the speech series I’m going to give will probably be in excess of 10 over the coming weeks, and the reason I’m giving these speeches is because I am very much concerned about the election integrity in the United States of America. I want a system whereby the only votes that count are those by American citizens who are eligible to vote and are lawfully cast. Everybody else’s votes should not count because they’re not American citizens or they’re otherwise ineligible to vote. And the system we have now, unfortunately, has so many loopholes in it hat I’m very much concerned about voter fraud and election theft. And when you’re talking about the presidency of the United States, or for that matter, any other elected office in the United States, the one thing that is very, very important to trust in our republic is that we have confidence that the numbers being reported by these election officials actually correpsond with what the law requires, which is lawfully cast votes by American citizens.
Now, personally, I’ve been on the wrong side of voter fraud and election theft back in 1982, in the days when Alabama was totally Democrat. By way of example, in the Alabama legislature, we were outnumbered 136 Democrats to 4 Republicans in 1982. Of our 31 statewide elected officials, that’s all the appellate court judges, the governor, everybody else, it was 31 to 0 in favor of the Democrats. In my home county, Madison County, there were 0 elected Republicans in partisan office. For that matter, in the entire Tennessee Valley, from Mississippi on the west to Georgia on the east, there were 0 Republicans holding a partisan position in any of the local or state elected offices.
And so, for whatever reason, I ran as a Republican. Quite frankly, I’d seen Ronald Reagan, seen Jimmy Carter, and they kind of persuaded me what my ideology and who I best fit with.
And then on election day, I started getting a whole bunch of phone calls from angry voters and those angry voters were saying, “Wait a second. I thought I was in your district. I have a yard sign of yours in my yard. My machine won’t let me vote for you.”
In Alabama at that time, we had these little lever machines. You pull a lever down and an X appears next to the candidates names so you know that you’ve actually properly voted for that candidate, and then the machine is supposed to register all those X’s for all those candidates.
I naively went into this process at age 28 thinking that yes, politics is hardball, but believing that at least the election system was honorable. Lo and behold, after everything was said and done, we conducted an investigation and determined that 11 (roughly 25%) of the 45 voting machines in that Alabama House district were rigged to vote for any of the 26 candidates on the ballot except for Mo Brooks.
Things were so bad, by way of example, that in one voting location in the heart of the district, a strong Republican box where there were 5 machines, none of them wold register votes for Mo Brooks when the day started. And so the poll workers, at least they did something constructive, they started publicly announcing that if you wanted to vote for Mo Brooks, go sign your name on the wall. So at least you could vote for Mo Brooks (albeit you had to lose your secret ballot right in order to do it).
As the dust settled, we were very fortunate and blessed. We still won the election with 57% of the vote, but you can imagine my shock and anger, and the shock and anger of the voters, when they discovered that the Democrats had rigged the election process in order to prevent me from being that breach in their dam and becoming the only elected Republican in the northern third of the state of Alabama, and the Alabama legislature.
|Jekielek||That is an incredible story. So this present situation is personal to you.|
|Brooks||Absolutely. I’ve been through it. What are the odds that out of 45 machines, 11 machines would register votes for all 26 candidates except for Mo Brooks? If you know your math, that’s one chance in 26 for any 1 machine. For 11 machines, that’s 26 to the 11th power. That is 1 chance out of 3.6 quadrillion chances that it was an accident and was not intentional. We had a pretty good idea from our investigation who actually did it. Unfortunately, the whole system was run by Democrats, so you got nowhere in trying to seek relief for that problem.
And we have that kind of problem today, too. That was back in 1982, but around the country, there are so many flaws in our election system that I do not have confidence at all in some of these states that the election results that are being projected are in fact the will of a majority of the votes lawfully cast by American citizens. In my judgement, based on what I have seen so far and my personal experience with voter fraud and election theft by Democrats, in my judgement, if you could only count lawfully cast votes by American citizens, Donald Trump won the Electoral College. But we need that magic wand and we need the sword of Damocles to come down and confirm that becuase the way the election system is set up, it is very, very difficult to prove voter fraud or election theft. Extremely difficult.
By way of example, you’ve got someone who casts a ballot illegally. You know what happens to that ballot? It’s not marked in some way so that you can pull it back out once it’s been mixed with all the other ballots. So how do you prove that illegel voter voted? Extraordinally difficult. Our system is set up not to ensure that we have fair and honest elections. Rather, it is set up in some ways to encourage dishonest elections by making it so easy to get away with dishonest elections.
|Jekielek||Let’s talk about some of the scenarios that we’re seeing. I think in the news today again, as we’re filming here, there’s a third memory card that is alleged to have been missing. I don’t know the exact details. This is, I believe, in Georgia. What do you make of this particular element of these memory cards not being counted, for example?|
|Brooks||People need to understand that we do have criminals in America. They commit murders, they commit rapes, they commit robberies, they commit burlaries, they steal, and some of those folks, like it or not, happen to be involved in the election process. And if they’re willing to commit these more heinous criminal acts against their fellow citizens, do you think for one second they’d be hesitant about stealing an election or engaging in voter fraud if they thought they could get away with it?
We’ve got to have more safeguards. We have to have a system that the criminal element in American society, that the hyper-partisan element in American society cannot illegally rig to the benefit of their partisan flavor as opposed to the other partisan flavor. And I wish that we had cooperation from the Democrats in that regard, but we don’t. Instead, the Democrats in America are trying to make it easier for people to commit voter fraud and election theft.
Now, I’ll give you an example. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act, one of the first things Democrat Bill Clinton did with a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate they had control, Republicans by and large voted against it, Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it. In America, who’s supposed to be allowed to vote? American citizens, right? At least in federal elections, there are some Democrat enclaves where they’ll legally allow illegal aliens and lawful immigrants, non-citizens, to register to vote and vote in municipal elections. But in federal elections, only American citizens are supposed to be allowed to vote.
The Democrats passed in 1993 this legislation that makes it illegal for our voter registrars to determine whether a person who is registering to vote is an American citizen. Makes it illegal. So how are you going to limit the election to American citizens when the people who are supposed to be registering voters cannot make the kind of inquiry that is required to verify whether the person who walks into their office is in fact an American citizen? That’s an example of what the Democrats have foisted on us, which in turn results in my judgement, a lot of illegal votes being cast. The question is, why else would Democrats do that if they didn’t thingk they’d be able to take advantage of it in order to win elections?
A solution already mentioned on this blog
Further on in the interview (at the 16:07 mark), Representative Brooks gets to the solution.
|Brooks||In the United States Congress, we control who the President of the United States is. The courts do not. Ok. Federal courts, the Supreme Court, they have a role in the process. For example, in the year 2000, Al Gore versus George Bush, when they ordered the poll workers in the state of Florida to use the same kind of chad checking system in all Florida counties, not have a different sytem in the Miami Broward County versus the Panhandle, when it had to operate the same under equal protection grounds all across the state, that closed down their different counting systme in Broward County and in Dade County, and surrounding areas. And that resulted in Florida certifying the state of Florida as having been won by George Bush.
However, the ultimate say over whether to accept or reject those electoral college votes — in that instance in Florida; now, for any state — is not a court’s job. It is Congress’s job. Under Article I, Article II, Amendment XII of the United States Constitution, coupled with federal statutes that govern this issue, the United States Congress has the absolute right to reject the submitted electoral college votes of any state which we believe has such a shoddy election system that you can’t trust the election results that those states are submitting to us, that they’re suspect.
And I’m not going to put my name in support of any state that employs an election system that I don’t have confidence in, and I’d go through the top two or three states I mentioned a while ago that I lacked confidence, that the returns that they’re being reported accurately reflect lawful votes by eligible American citizens.
Now, how do you do that in the United States Congress? On January 6, at 1 p.m. Eastern time the 50 states will report to Congress, the President of the Senate will preside over this meeting, will report to Congress what they contend are their electoral college results in their state. If a House member and a Senator objects to the submission of electoral college votes by any state — that immediately triggers a House floor vote and a Senate floor vote on whether to accept or reject those electoral college votes submitted by that particular state. The amount of debate on the House and Senate floor is limited to two hours under federal law, and if we reject those electoral college votes, then they’re taken out of the mix.
If the election process problems are so great that after subtracting the electoral college votes of states that are running a poor election system, a system so suspect that you can’t give credibility to the results that are being reported, then the United States Constitution mandates that Congress determine who the next President and Vice President of the United States will be.
Under Article I, Article II, and Amendment XII of the United States Constitution, the House of Representatives will be the body that determines who is President of the United States, the Vice President will be determined by the United States Senate, and they can even be members of different parties if that’s the will of the House and the Senate.
Now, in the House, there’s a little bit of a twist. It’s not a majority of 435 congressmen that determines who the President of the United States will be, rather it is a majority of the state delegations that determines who the President of the United States will be.
That being the case, based on the election we had just a couple of weeks ago, the Republicans control 26 state delegations, the Democrats control 20 state delegations, with the remainder being tied with the possible exception of Iowa. There’s an uncalled Iowa House race. If that is called in favor of the GOP candidate, who’s up, last I saw, about 47 votes, then there will be 27 state delegations that have a majority of their members being Republican, hence the House would be in a position to elect a Republican to the White House based on what we saw a couple of weeks ago on Election Day earlier in November, on November 3.
I don’t know who the Senate would elect as the Vice President. That would be up to them, but that’s the process that is embedded in the United States Constitution, should no candidate get a majority of the electoral college vote, either because there’s a tie or because there are so many candidates — as was the case in 1824 where there were four candidates that split the vote so no one got a majority, and the House then elected the second place finisher John Quincy Adams to be President of the United States over Andrew Jackson who came in first — or should it be the case that you’ve discounted electoral college votes such that no candidate for President of the United States got the magic number of 270, which is a majority of the Electoral College.