Help Expose Dishonesty of Electoral College Petition Author, Daniel Brezenoff

He created a petition to have electoral college make Clinton president on December 19th. Yesterday I laid out the facts and laws and have made several other attempts as you will see. Today I saw a MSM source quoting him on how its the right thing to do. Later on he cannot claim innocence because i have the webpage showing our exchange yesterday.
.
https://medium.com/p/501b1e32b4b6/info

Your eyes are going to fall out on him saying:

"SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE.

There is no reason Trump should be President."

Two lines later her says:

"No. Our Constitution says the Electors choose"
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

He represents the liberalism satan rejected on grounds of cruelty.







He made a lot of false claims and about ten minutes ago he blocked my twitter because not only was it proven he doesn know the laws, he never bothered learning before posting. I repeatedly asked him to post the laws backing his claims and he never did. So I posted them and his only defense: Im reading the law wrong.
https://twitter.com/BFoustark/with_replies

Here is my first message to him:

Mr. Brezenoff, it is commendable how much energy is being put forth with the petition, but it is actually helping Trump. When you start a public conversation on the pillar of elections you have a responsibility to ensure you know the subject. The Electoral College does not, and has never made the final decision on POTUS because the Constitution, 12th, 14th amendments clearly give the final gavel to Congress. Even if you get every Elector to vote for Clinton it will not change anything because they do not have the final word. Your petition can be a way to block Trump if you can get them to sign a petition that will definitely keep Trump out of office. Im working on the petition we need and will link it to you asap.https://medium.com/@brylarfoustark/...he-petition-but-it-is-501b1e32b4b6#.spmk0ng4k

I was and still am only about the election which is why cannot continue the fuel for lying and misinforming millions of voters.

He has a ton of posts about Trump saying he is lying for his own political game, yet here is lying for his own political game.

He wants to break the law to ensure Fairness.

This is a horrible trend where people cry because they dont like the results and screw everyone else.

He doesnt have a single legal objection as he told me so h'es just crib juicin from selfishness.

This is important for all Americans to recognize the importance of knowing election laws and good grief, if you dont like then at least respect the law.

We need to consider the public ramifications of his agenda. Let's say Clinton gets the most EC Votes on December 19th. Now fast forward a month and Trump becomes POTUS. People would freaking riot on the assumption the government illegally installed Trump since she won the most EC votes.

And all because people like Brezenoff only care about themselves, laws be dammed.

Now it is at a huge laugh because he is slowly understanding the petition should never have happened. But has to create another lie by claiming my strategy of challenging trump's votes wont work because there is NO LEGAL BASIS for challenging his votes. lol..guess courts issuing restraining orders have no basis too. He has been repeatedly screaming for Trump being a fraud and he became what he condemned.


It would just be nice if he took responsibility and announed his errors

Brischera said:

...his only defense: Im reading the law wrong.

...The Electoral College does not, and has never made the final decision on POTUS because the Constitution, 12th, 14th amendments clearly give the final gavel to Congress.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but you are reading the law wrong.

From the 12th Amendment:

...The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii

Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment says nothing about Congress electing a President. It discusses the rights of male citizens 21 years or older to vote in any State, which may not be denied for other than certain listed exceptions.

The only time Congress has "the final say" is when the candidates split the electoral vote in such a way that none has a majority of the total of all electors appointed, i.e. currently the requirement is 270. Then, and ONLY then will Congress vote to decide.

Trump would need to lose 37 electors in order to drop below 270. This is why YOU are trying to give the "final say" to Congress by urging people to lobby for unfaithful electors in another thread.

Im giving some benefit of doubt because I dont want to believe you purposefully did not address the provided facts. So we need to parse to avoid confusion.

"the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed"

From a link in the OP that very line was addressed with:

"If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law."

If x person has majority of votes going into January that person has still not been elected. If congress challenges ECV and is successful causing the person to no longer have a majority then all ECV are tossed and the parties vote in the next POTUS.

The OP linked the 1872 and 1876 elections where Congress dismissed all electoral votes in a few states.

When Congess objects it has nothing to do with who does or does not have a majority. Because as soon as they object, NOBODY has the majority until they have reached a conclusion.

"The only time Congress has "the final say" is when the candidates split the electoral vote in such a way that none has a majority of the total of all electors appointed,"

AGAIN, I already proved in the op links congress can object in january and it does not matter if a candidate a majority or not. To avoid any slide dancing for manipulating interpretation of the law just look at Ohio in 2005 when Bush had 286 ECV. Something strange happened. A mysterious hammer came down and the ECV in Ohio were challenged and the objection literally stopped the certification process:

"Bush received 286 electoral votes, 16 more than the 270 he needed to win re-election." According to you, since he had the majority Congress couldnt do anything but count and certify votes.

"Alleging widespread "irregularities" on Election Day, a group of Democrats in Congress objected earlier Thursday to the counting of Ohio's 20 electoral votes." If your reading was correct they would not have been able to stop the counting by objecting Ohio.
CNN.com - Bush carries Electoral College after delay - Jan 6, 2005

There is also another link in the OP that sets out the lawful protocol electing a new president.

In 1876 Tilden had a majority of votes in BOTH the popular EC elections so according to your reading Tilden should have won. He didnt because Congress removed enough ECV to put his count at 184, just one point away. Congress then installed Hayes, the person that did second best. You know what? That is in the OP too.

Accusing me of being pro faithless electors was a horrible mistake. Not only have I never lobbied for it, Ive been saying DONT do it because it is a complete waste of time. The only reason I signed the petition in the OP was to gain access to voters who were believing his false claims about the process.

Would you please read the information in the OP before any more objections? Only saying it because Im not going to rewrite it in the same thread a hundred times because people are not reading the facts.

Captain Adverse said:

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but you are reading the law wrong.

From the 12th Amendment:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii

Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment says nothing about Congress electing a President. It discusses the rights of male citizens 21 years or older to vote in any State, which may not be denied for other than certain listed exceptions.

The only time Congress has "the final say" is when the candidates split the electoral vote in such a way that none has a majority of the total of all electors appointed, i.e. currently the requirement is 270. Then, and ONLY then will Congress vote to decide.

Trump would need to lose 37 electors in order to drop below 270. This is why YOU are trying to give the "final say" to Congress by urging people to lobby for unfaithful electors in another thread.

Click to expand...

Here is another excerpt from the CNN article in 2005:

"The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection."
CNN.com - Bush carries Electoral College after delay - Jan 6, 2005

For some oddity some are ignoring the fact the 1876 proved congress has the final say and the results of the ECV are meaningless.

That link proves:

1 having a majority of ECV cannot stop objections.

2. It doest matter if a candidate does have the majority.

3. They have to authority to overturn an election even if a candidate received the ECV majority.

Brischera said:

From a link in the OP that very line was addressed with:

"If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law."

Click to expand...

Yes, but the objections must have factual grounds questioning the validity of the Elector's State certification. They cannot simply be unfounded objections to change the outcome:

From the documents you cite:

Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received...No electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

Click to expand...

https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...urces/2016-presidential-election-brochure.pdf

That takes us to your next point:

Brischera said:

The OP linked the 1872 and 1876 elections where Congress dismissed all electoral votes in a few states...In 1876 Tilden had a majority of votes in BOTH the popular EC elections so according to your reading Tilden should have won. He didnt because Congress removed enough ECV to put his count at 184, just one point away. Congress then installed Hayes, the person that did second best.

Click to expand...

The objections were based on claims by both political parties that each had actually won 19 of the 20 contested Electoral votes in those States. Each party in three states submitted conflicting lists of Electors. Congress appointed an election commission to review the facts which awarded Hayes all 20 votes.

Tilden won 184 electoral votes to Hayes's 165, with 20 votes unresolved. These 20 electoral votes were in dispute in four states. In the case of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, each party reported its candidate had won the state, while in Oregon one elector was replaced after being declared illegal for being an "elected or appointed official".

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876

So if both Houses of Congress determine the votes were invalid because the electors were not properly certified, and this reduces the vote for the winner below the over 50% of the total electoral college membership margin, then they can select the winner.

Brischera said:

When Congess objects it has nothing to do with who does or does not have a majority. Because as soon as they object, NOBODY has the majority until they have reached a conclusion.

Click to expand...

Not quite true. It depends entirely on how many votes are being objected to. If the number objected would not place the candidate below the majority number (ex. 20 contested votes in Trump's case would still leave him comfortably over the 270 margin needed to win the election) then Congress will only delay announcing his victory until they determine who gets what part of those 20 votes objected to. He'd still win.

Brischera said:

To avoid any slide dancing for manipulating interpretation of the law just look at Ohio in 2005 when Bush had 286 ECV.

Click to expand...

Yes because Ohio's 20 votes were being challenged, and since the loss of those 20 would have reduced Bush from 286 down to 266, and raised Edwards from 251 up to 271 (and the win) so of course it delayed the process. Congress voted against the objections and Bush won.

See Election Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Election_controversy

Brischera said:

Accusing me of being pro faithless electors was a horrible mistake.

Click to expand...

You are correct here. I made the mistake of thinking you were this member but did not check before I posted my response in your thread:

Sietske22 said:

Flip The 37: Say "No" To A Trump Presidency

Click to expand...

That was my error, and I humbly apologize.

The bottom line is that unless a member of the House and a member of the Senate both sign an objection which challenges the certification of a sufficient number of elector's to reduce him below 270 certified votes, all they will do is determine the corrected number and still declare him the winner.

You are NOT going to bury this in gravy so I am going to break it down to one of your objections to make sure there is no dancing and we have CLEAR communication. You claimed:


""The only time Congress has "the final say" is when the candidates split the electoral vote in such a way that none has a majority of the total of all electors appointed,"

Do you stand by that claim YES or NO?

Captain Adverse said:

Yes, but the objections must have factual grounds questioning the validity of the Elector's State certification. They cannot simply be unfounded objections to change the outcome:

From the documents you cite:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...urces/2016-presidential-election-brochure.pdf

That takes us to your next point:



The objections were based on claims by both political parties that each had actually won 19 of the 20 contested Electoral votes in those States. Each party in three states submitted conflicting lists of Electors. Congress appointed an election commission to review the facts which awarded Hayes all 20 votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876

So if both Houses of Congress determine the votes were invalid because the electors were not properly certified, and this reduces the vote for the winner below the over 50% of the total electoral college membership margin, then they can select the winner.



Not quite true. It depends entirely on how many votes are being objected to. If the number objected would not place the candidate below the majority number (ex. 20 contested votes in Trump's case would still leave him comfortably over the 270 margin needed to win the election) then Congress will only delay announcing his victory until they determine who gets what part of those 20 votes objected to. He'd still win.



Yes because Ohio's 20 votes were being challenged, and since the loss of those 20 would have reduced Bush from 286 down to 266, and raised Edwards from 251 up to 271 (and the win) so of course it delayed the process. Congress voted against the objections and Bush won.

See Election Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Election_controversy



You are correct here. I made the mistake of thinking you were this member but did not check before I posted my response in your thread:



That was my error, and I humbly apologize.

The bottom line is that unless a member of the House and a member of the Senate both sign an objection which challenges the certification of a sufficient number of elector's to reduce him below 270 certified votes, all they will do is determine the corrected number and still declare him the winner.

Click to expand...

Brischera said:

He created a petition to have electoral college make Clinton president on December 19th. Yesterday I laid out the facts and laws and have made several other attempts as you will see. Today I saw a MSM source quoting him on how its the right thing to do. Later on he cannot claim innocence because i have the webpage showing our exchange yesterday.
.
https://medium.com/p/501b1e32b4b6/info

Your eyes are going to fall out on him saying:

"SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE.

There is no reason Trump should be President."

Two lines later her says:

"No. Our Constitution says the Electors choose"
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

He represents the liberalism satan rejected on grounds of cruelty.







He made a lot of false claims and about ten minutes ago he blocked my twitter because not only was it proven he doesn know the laws, he never bothered learning before posting. I repeatedly asked him to post the laws backing his claims and he never did. So I posted them and his only defense: Im reading the law wrong.
https://twitter.com/BFoustark/with_replies

Here is my first message to him:

Mr. Brezenoff, it is commendable how much energy is being put forth with the petition, but it is actually helping Trump. When you start a public conversation on the pillar of elections you have a responsibility to ensure you know the subject. The Electoral College does not, and has never made the final decision on POTUS because the Constitution, 12th, 14th amendments clearly give the final gavel to Congress. Even if you get every Elector to vote for Clinton it will not change anything because they do not have the final word. Your petition can be a way to block Trump if you can get them to sign a petition that will definitely keep Trump out of office. Im working on the petition we need and will link it to you asap.https://medium.com/@brylarfoustark/...he-petition-but-it-is-501b1e32b4b6#.spmk0ng4k

I was and still am only about the election which is why cannot continue the fuel for lying and misinforming millions of voters.

He has a ton of posts about Trump saying he is lying for his own political game, yet here is lying for his own political game.

He wants to break the law to ensure Fairness.

This is a horrible trend where people cry because they dont like the results and screw everyone else.

He doesnt have a single legal objection as he told me so h'es just crib juicin from selfishness.

This is important for all Americans to recognize the importance of knowing election laws and good grief, if you dont like then at least respect the law.

We need to consider the public ramifications of his agenda. Let's say Clinton gets the most EC Votes on December 19th. Now fast forward a month and Trump becomes POTUS. People would freaking riot on the assumption the government illegally installed Trump since she won the most EC votes.

And all because people like Brezenoff only care about themselves, laws be dammed.

Click to expand...

What these people don't realize is that if we did change the rules to popular vote, both campagns would have run their campaigns differently.

I think it would be a serious plus for the republicans since the two of the three states with the most electoral votes are liberal, and the other one, a swing states!

Think about this liberals.

Do you really want the republicans fighting for voter percentages in Now York and California?

Brischera said:

You are NOT going to bury this in gravy so I am going to break it down to one of your objections to make sure there is no dancing and we have CLEAR communication. You claimed:


""The only time Congress has "the final say" is when the candidates split the electoral vote in such a way that none has a majority of the total of all electors appointed,"

Do you stand by that claim YES or NO?

Click to expand...

Yes, I do as I explained in depth in my last response.

To make it simple for YOU; this condition can occur either as a direct result of a split EC vote giving no single candidate the over-50% margin, OR if an objection by member's of Congress successfully challenges the valid certification of sufficient EC votes creating the same problem.

Lord of Planar said:

What these people don't realize is that if we did change the rules to popular vote, both campagns would have run their campaigns differently.

I think it would be a serious plus for the republicans since the two of the three states with the most electoral votes are liberal, and the other one, a swing states!

Think about this liberals.

Do you really want the republicans fighting for voter percentages in Now York and California?

Click to expand...

There are two basic responses I give them on this issue:

1. show where you lobbied to have the EC removed BEFORE November 2016 and if you are unable then it is clear you dont care about the process and are only upset with the results.

2. Let's have a popular vote for what rights minorities can have, abortion, voting, racial discrimination in the job and education fields.

They usually shrink back.

Captain Adverse said:

Yes, I do as I explained in depth in my last response.

To make it simple for YOU; this condition can occur either as a direct result of a split EC vote giving no single candidate the over-50% margin, OR if an objection by member's of Congress successfully challenges the valid certification of sufficient EC votes creating the same problem.

Click to expand...

"Yes, I do..."

There is no point in a further discussion because I provided the laws, and you ignored them. I provided the example of how Bush had 286 ECV and Congress was able to shut down the certification to challenge the ECV.

Your objection stated:

"The only time Congress has "the final say" is when the candidates split the electoral vote in such a way that none has a majority of the total of all electors appointed,"

So you continue to say that is true even though Congress stopped certification when Bush CLEARLY had a majority of 286 votes.

I dont take your sidestepping personally but I also wont waste time when such obvious false claims are danced. You seem like a good guy but like many people, quite embarrassed that you were not aware of our election process, being a veteran of discussing politics.

The EC is how presidents are elected, its in the constitution.

If the left end of the political spectrum wants to change that, fine, raise a constitutional amendment and change it, if you can.
I don't think you'll be successful in that, as the majority of state legislatures are held by the Republicans, but you are welcome to try.

Regardless, it's not going to change the outcome of this presidential election, so get over your butt hurt and deal with it already. It's getting tiring.

Brischera said:

Im giving some benefit of doubt because I dont want to believe you purposefully did not address the provided facts. So we need to parse to avoid confusion.

"the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed"

From a link in the OP that very line was addressed with:

"If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law."

If x person has majority of votes going into January that person has still not been elected. If congress challenges ECV and is successful causing the person to no longer have a majority then all ECV are tossed and the parties vote in the next POTUS.

The OP linked the 1872 and 1876 elections where Congress dismissed all electoral votes in a few states.

When Congess objects it has nothing to do with who does or does not have a majority. Because as soon as they object, NOBODY has the majority until they have reached a conclusion.

"The only time Congress has "the final say" is when the candidates split the electoral vote in such a way that none has a majority of the total of all electors appointed,"

AGAIN, I already proved in the op links congress can object in january and it does not matter if a candidate a majority or not. To avoid any slide dancing for manipulating interpretation of the law just look at Ohio in 2005 when Bush had 286 ECV. Something strange happened. A mysterious hammer came down and the ECV in Ohio were challenged and the objection literally stopped the certification process:

"Bush received 286 electoral votes, 16 more than the 270 he needed to win re-election." According to you, since he had the majority Congress couldnt do anything but count and certify votes.

"Alleging widespread "irregularities" on Election Day, a group of Democrats in Congress objected earlier Thursday to the counting of Ohio's 20 electoral votes." If your reading was correct they would not have been able to stop the counting by objecting Ohio.
CNN.com - Bush carries Electoral College after delay - Jan 6, 2005

There is also another link in the OP that sets out the lawful protocol electing a new president.

In 1876 Tilden had a majority of votes in BOTH the popular EC elections so according to your reading Tilden should have won. He didnt because Congress removed enough ECV to put his count at 184, just one point away. Congress then installed Hayes, the person that did second best. You know what? That is in the OP too.

Accusing me of being pro faithless electors was a horrible mistake. Not only have I never lobbied for it, Ive been saying DONT do it because it is a complete waste of time. The only reason I signed the petition in the OP was to gain access to voters who were believing his false claims about the process.

Would you please read the information in the OP before any more objections? Only saying it because Im not going to rewrite it in the same thread a hundred times because people are not reading the facts.

Click to expand...

The cited statement regarding the 1872 election is misleading. Three electoral votes were dismissed under extreme circumstances as Greeley died and there were three electoral votes cast for him posthumously.

Brischera said:

"Yes, I do..."

There is no point in a further discussion because I provided the laws, and you ignored them. I provided the example of how Bush had 286 ECV and Congress was able to shut down the certification to challenge the ECV.

Your objection stated:

"The only time Congress has "the final say" is when the candidates split the electoral vote in such a way that none has a majority of the total of all electors appointed,"

So you continue to say that is true even though Congress stopped certification when Bush CLEARLY had a majority of 286 votes.

I dont take your sidestepping personally but I also wont waste time when such obvious false claims are danced. You seem like a good guy but like many people, quite embarrassed that you were not aware of our election process, being a veteran of discussing politics.

Click to expand...

Apparently you require I read your sources, but you failed to do the same in regard to mine. I directly answered your responses and provided support for my position.

I debunked your "Bush 2004" example by showing that the objection raised was over the 20 Ohio electoral votes due to reports of voter irregularity leading to a recount. That those 20 votes meant the difference between a Bush win or a Kerry win. Had Bush had 290 EC votes rather than only 286, then even if Congress had found in favor of Kerry based on the objection (which they did not), it would not have resulted in any change at all in the result.

I also debunked your Tilden 1876 example on similar grounds.

As Trump has 306 EC votes the Congress would have to successfully object to the valid certification of 37 EC votes to drop Trump below the 270 mark otherwise Trump still wins. As a point of information, that would require agreement to the objections in both Houses of Congress, and the Republican party currently controls both. Not gonna happen. :shrug:

Now I appreciate your attempt at informed discourse, but I don't believe you understand what you are discussing.

Tennyson said:

The cited statement regarding the 1872 election is misleading. Three electoral votes were dismissed under extreme circumstances as Greeley died and there were three electoral votes cast for him posthumously.

Click to expand...

It is not misleading because people are claiming the ECV ARE NEVER DISMISSED. Sorry I did not make that more clear.

eohrnberger said:

The EC is how presidents are elected, its in the constitution.

If the left end of the political spectrum wants to change that, fine, raise a constitutional amendment and change it, if you can.
I don't think you'll be successful in that, as the majority of state legislatures are held by the Republicans, but you are welcome to try.

Regardless, it's not going to change the outcome of this presidential election, so get over your butt hurt and deal with it already. It's getting tiring.

Click to expand...

It is part of the process, but the EC does NOT have the final call on POTUS and that is the false claim being made.

Most responses demonstrate at best an OP gets a glance and some think that is sufficient for a response. If you dont read the op dont waste time with a response.

For those interested in learning the election process here is a PDF:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...urces/2016-presidential-election-brochure.pdf

Some people were confused about what it involved because instead of reading the links in the OP they decided a self hunt would be sufficient. It was not. On the rule of having Reps barred from the process if their State was found to be guilty of voter fraud the 14th Amendment states:

SECTION 3.
No person shall be
...
elector of
President and Vice President
...
who, having previously
taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any
State, to support the Constitution of the United States, The 2016 Presidential Election/
Provisions of the Constitution and United States Code
8
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But
Congress may by a vote of two
-
thirds of each House,
remove such disability