Josh Hawley and the PA constitution

Politics & Elections
21

Let me reiterate that my charge of perjury against Hawley was not based on his false claim about the PA constitution but on his having sworn to defend the constitution and then going on the violate it.

This entire proceeding of counting the EVs is pro forma. They are authorized to count them and report the count. The law of 1887 is for the odd circumstance of a state’s having submitted two slates to congress. In fact, if Pence was doing his job correctly, he should not have allowed any objections not based on two sets of electors from a state and just reported the result and continued. How could Hawley set himself up as an expert on the PA constitution when he cannot understand the US constitution? That 1887 act is arguably unconstitutional itself, but it was a response to an extraordinary situation. Compare the statehood of WV. But there was no resemblance between the situation of 1876 and that of today.

22

Once again, that action does not meet the legal definition of perjury, (or even the ordinary use of the word.)

23

Well, that makes it OK, then.

24

It doesn’t, but it’s something other than what is perjury, which was the original question. He’s being a lying sack of youknowwhat but that is protected by parliamentary immunity in the case of debates, and misleading the chamber through false witness at most only earns him a Senatorial disciplinary action and political consequences, if the political will is there.

25

I didn’t say that it did.