Yesterday, along with the text of an e-mail [reportedly from Josh Hawley (r)]:

Manu Raju @mkraju
Sen. Josh Hawley fires back after Sen. Pat Toomey and others raise concerns about his plans — along with at least 11 other GOP senators — to object to the electoral vote count when a joint session of Congress meets Jan. 6, per email sent to Senate GOP Conference tonight
[….]
9:51 PM · Jan 2, 2021

The e-mail text:

Colleagues,

I read Senator Toomey’s statement regarding my intention to object during the Electoral College certification process. I recognize that our caucus will have varied opinions of this subject. That’s not surprising But I also believe that we should avoid putting words into each other’s mouths and making unfounded claims about the intentions of our fellow Senators. I never claim to speak for another Senator, but I do speak for my constituents when they raise legitimate concerns about issues as important as the fairness of our elections.

For, example, in Pennsylvania: since the nineteenth century, the Pennsylvania Constitution has required all votes to be cast in person, with narrowly defined exceptions. This fact is widely acknowledged. Pennsylvania courts have ruled on this question multiple times. But last year, the state legislature enacted a new law purporting to permit voting by mail for any reason, directly contradicting the state constitution. This November, sate officials put the new law into effect. More than 2.5 million Pennsylvanians voted by mail on November 6 (or after), in numbers far exceeding the margin of difference between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. When Pennsylvania Congressman Mike Kelly and others challenged the law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the case without hearing the merits – violating its own precedent in doing so. To date, no one has mounted a substantive defense of the state law under which the November election was conducted. And contrary to Senator Toomey’s claims, no court has ruled on the merits of this question. These are very serious irregularities, on a very large scale, in a presidential election.

I could go on. But instead of debating the issue of election integrity by press release, conference call or e-mail, perhaps we could have a debate on the Senate floor for all of the American people to judge. That is what we were elected to do and it is, I suggest, what we owe to our constituents.

Missourians have been loud and clear that they do not believe the presidential election was fair. Instead of following the media’s example and lecturing our constituents, I believe it is my responsibility as a Senator to raise their concerns in the forum allowed to members of Congress. That’s exactly what I intend to do. And I hope that we can have a vigorous debate full of substance and free of shameless personal attacks.

Best,

Josh

“…But I also believe that we should avoid putting words into each other’s mouths…”

Proceed, Senator.

“…I do speak for my constituents..”

So says the third Senator from Virginia.

“…in Pennsylvania: since the nineteenth century…”

Your constituents don’t have standing for election litigation in Pennsylvania, “constitutional lawyer”.

“…When Pennsylvania Congressman Mike Kelly and others challenged the law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the case…”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court [pdf]:

…The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters…

Now what, Josh?

“…I could go on…”

There are a whole bunch of other court orders on this subject, so could we.

“…Missourians have been loud and clear that they do not believe the presidential election was fair…”

In Missouri? They don’t have standing anywhere else, do they?

What lead to this belief on their part? Not any proof according to numerous courts in numerous jurisdictions.

“…Instead of following the media’s example and lecturing our constituents…”

Okay.

That would explain a lot.

“…And I hope that we can have a vigorous debate full of substance and free of shameless personal attacks…”

Fascist pig. I’ll put a nickel in the “civility jar”. It wasn’t a real violation.

Other reviews are in:

Dave Helling @dhellingkc
Hawley claims Missourians don’t think the election was fair. He is lying.
He also doesn’t understand the Constitution. What happened in PA is not legally relevant to MO. We elect presidents by state, not by person.
You’d expect more from a Stanford-Yale grad.
[….]
10:09 PM · Jan 2, 2021

Well, one of those fancy ones.

Chris Kelly @repckelly
[….]
Hawley’s “argument” is not one about which reasonable people can disagree. It is false on its face.
7:57 AM · Jan 3, 2021

It’s odd that Senators from Texas, Missouri & other states are trying to dictate how Pennsylvania should cast its electoral votes. The Republican Speaker of the PA House, the Governor, Secretary of State, Senator Toomey, PA courts, etc… are all on the same page: Biden won PA.

[….]I’m from Missouri. Hawley doesn’t speak for most of us. Hey Manu, if you want to do a real story, investigate Josh Hawley voting illegally in Missouri using his sisters address.

Missourian here!!! Stop!!! We’ve been calling your office! The line is busy! We’ve been sending emails! You do not speak for all Missourians! You don’t even live here!

Wait so Josh Hawley believes that he speaks for constituents in Pennsylvania?

Yeah, it’s weird. He went to law school in Connecticut and lives in Virginia but was elected and voted in Missouri and thinks he’s the Senator from Pennsylvania. The man needs medical help, or Google Maps.

Wait! He says, “…the state legislature enacted a new law….”

But their whole protest has been that the US Constitution says that state legislatures determine how electors are chosen, and that changes were made that were outside the legislature, therefore unconstitutional?

…to November’s election.
He also blows a hole in the argument that Trump should seek a remedy by GOP-run legislatures (which he begged them to do). They are either the arbiters of voting law or not. They can’t be both.

Hawley knows this is BS. The reason his constituents “feel” that the election was unfair is because the president and people like Hawley keep telling them it is. A REAL leader would tell his people the truth and stop grifting his constituents to prepare for his presidential run.

It’s hard to tell with right wingnuts.

Well, no. This is what laches is. Or reliance, when viewed from the perspective of the voters who relied on politicians and election officials who told them they didn’t need an excuse anymore to vote absentee.

Standing is generally, “you weren’t harmed; stop complaining.”

If you want to have a say in how Pennsylvania runs its elections, move to Pennsylvania. How would you feel if people living in California objected to the way Missouri elections are run? And the GOP house reps that won in PA? Does Missouri think them invalid now too? Or just Dems?

Addendum to the letter: The Pennsylvania legislature that enacted policies “contrary to the state constitution” has a GOP majority

Addendum Part 2: Suck it @HawleyMO

Has Sen. Hawley become on expert on PA election law? PA Legislature is free to pass a law that defines the ‘narrow exceptions’ Mr. Hawley eludes in his letter. They did so. A pandemic happened to be one of those exceptions to health and safety permitting the vote by mail.

His own statement shows that the elected PA State legislature enacted the changes to State law and that challenges to the legality of those changes have been dismissed by the PA Supreme Court.

What exactly do you want to ‘debate’?

Everything here was known before the election, and neither @HawleyMO nor anyone else argued that we should disenfranchise Pennsylvania’s electorate until they saw that Trump lost. Sad!

Hawley is not objecting to the PA law. He’s objecting to Trump’s loss. He’s not demanding that all other PA election results to be thrown out. Just Trump’s. And if Trump had won PA, you can bet Hawley would not have shit to say about how the election was conducted.

So let me see if I have this correct.

Votes for Biden are questionable but down-ballot votes for Republicans, on the same ballot, were legit?

So wait, first of all, overturning PA will not get Trump the win, but secondly, they’re upset bcs there were more mail-in ballots than Biden’s margin of win?? Do they think ALL the mail-in ballots were dem votes? Do they not know how voting works? Or counting? Or 2nd grade math??

Evidently so.

Why are you challenging a non-existent issue? Giuliani & his bizarre team lost 59 cases in court & admitted it wasn’t about fraud. Trump perpetrated stories about election fraud months before the election. Recounts found no fraud. Matching signatures found no fraud. [….]

So pragmatic, calm, and deceitful just like a traitor should be. Ignoring 60 cases thrown out of court, ignoring 8 million more votes but happily attempting, subtlety , to make sure millions of minorities and DEMS are made to seem fradulent. Yes “Josh”, we know what you are doing

“Fires back” with bullshit

So, the argument is that Pennsylvania passed an election law, gave everyone time time understand it, and then implemented it?

And people actually followed the new law?

That is the argument?

I belive there was voterfraud in Texas. Somebody that knows somebody, that has talked to somebody, that knew somebody, that read about somebody, that knew somebody, that heard about somebody, that talked to somebody, that was not there, is sure there were some fraud somewhere.

Or they watched The Faux News Channel. Same difference.

Hawley needs to realize that part of his job is to educate his constituents, not fan the flames of conspiracies that don’t exist. There was no voter fraud. Trump lost by millions of votes. There is nothing to investigate or debate.

And on and on…

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) – town hall in Warrensburg – Press Q and A – August 17, 2017 (August 17, 2017)

What passes for a flatbed truck at “…Yale, I think, or Harvard, one of those, one of those fancy ones…” (August 16, 2018)

Josh Hawley (r): throwing shit against the wall to see if anything sticks (December 30, 2020)

Josh Hawley (r): ladders and rakes (December 30, 2020)

Ladder Climbing 101: by the book (December 31, 2020)

Burning bridges (December 31, 2020)

Sedition, sedition…sedition (January 2, 2021)

What it is, is sedition… (January 3, 2021)