Surely there is a degree of due diligence that is expected from them, as representatives of millions of people? An expectation that they can’t just pretend to miss all the buzz about alleged election fraud, and make no effort whatsoever to investigate, nevermind try to disprove the allegations and circumstantial evidence of fraud, before voting to certify the results.
Especially when a considerable chunk of the congress voted against it, and were apparently concerned enough about the possibility of election fraud that they weren’t willing to certify (yet).
They can pull a HRC and claim they didn’t intend to certify fraudulent results, despite the circumstances, and get off scot-free? Not all surprising, to be honest. But frustrating
They were told by the dueling electors and state reps shit went wrong. Pence especially SEEN with his own fucking eyes the data being transmitted back and forth out of the united states.
He of all people knew for a fact, A FACT voter interference happened by an outside country.
Surely there is a degree of due diligence that is expected from them, as representatives of millions of people? An expectation that they can’t just pretend to miss all the buzz about alleged election fraud, and make no effort whatsoever to investigate, nevermind try to disprove the allegations and circumstantial evidence of fraud, before voting to certify the results.
You're describing a criminal investigation; as it is, criminal investigations are a function of the Executive Branch (specifically the Justice Department) and the man who was (until a very short time ago) in charge of the Justice Department said there was no evidence of fraud. As they can rightfully assume from Barr's words that due diligence has already been performed by the proper investigating authority--in a branch overseen by the President--then why would they feel obligated to duplicate effort.
What has been alleged is a massive conspiracy, unprecedented in scope and depth with (as you point out) no hard evidence, just circumstantial evidence and "buzz". As there is nothing concrete to disprove, it is thus impossible to disprove. So they're faced with either a choice: devote a massive amount of time and energy to prove a negative, or cut bait and take action on a concrete result: the electoral college voted on the 14th of December and said votes were filed in accordance with existing laws.
Criminal negligence couldn’t come into play?
Surely there is a degree of due diligence that is expected from them, as representatives of millions of people? An expectation that they can’t just pretend to miss all the buzz about alleged election fraud, and make no effort whatsoever to investigate, nevermind try to disprove the allegations and circumstantial evidence of fraud, before voting to certify the results.
Especially when a considerable chunk of the congress voted against it, and were apparently concerned enough about the possibility of election fraud that they weren’t willing to certify (yet).
They can pull a HRC and claim they didn’t intend to certify fraudulent results, despite the circumstances, and get off scot-free? Not all surprising, to be honest. But frustrating
They were told by the dueling electors and state reps shit went wrong. Pence especially SEEN with his own fucking eyes the data being transmitted back and forth out of the united states.
He of all people knew for a fact, A FACT voter interference happened by an outside country.
You're describing a criminal investigation; as it is, criminal investigations are a function of the Executive Branch (specifically the Justice Department) and the man who was (until a very short time ago) in charge of the Justice Department said there was no evidence of fraud. As they can rightfully assume from Barr's words that due diligence has already been performed by the proper investigating authority--in a branch overseen by the President--then why would they feel obligated to duplicate effort.
What has been alleged is a massive conspiracy, unprecedented in scope and depth with (as you point out) no hard evidence, just circumstantial evidence and "buzz". As there is nothing concrete to disprove, it is thus impossible to disprove. So they're faced with either a choice: devote a massive amount of time and energy to prove a negative, or cut bait and take action on a concrete result: the electoral college voted on the 14th of December and said votes were filed in accordance with existing laws.