Unless I missed it (entirely possible) ya know what Kemp did NOT do? He did not de-certify the election results pending the results of the audit. Calling for a signature audit does not change the certification status, does it?
From the document in CM's tweet re: disputed election results written by Edward Foley in Sept. 2019. It seems important for the results to be de-certified so that an extra-ordinary mechanism can be deployed to choose electors. Don't want to encounter the situation where there are two sets of electors in play. CM said read and study it - it's the playbook (my bolded type):
"Second, prior to the Safe Harbor deadline the governor certifies the appointment of the state’s electors after completion of the state’s procedures for counting the state’s popular vote, but after the Safe Harbor deadline has passed (but before the meeting of the state’s electors), evidence is discovered that the previously certified result is incorrect (perhaps it was absentee ballot fraud, as in North Carolina’s congressional district in 2018, or some form of foreign cyberattack, or some other cause). The state’s supreme court overturns the previous certification and declares the opposing set of electors the true winner of the state’s popular vote, and the governor certifies this new result. But Congress has received both gubernatorial certificates, and the party favored by the first one is arguing that it is the only valid one because it is the only one with Safe Harbor status. What does 3 U.S.C. § 15 require in this situation. And if the House and Senate disagree, what happens given that both returns have the governor’s certificate?
https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/vol-51/issue-2/7_Foley%20(309-362).pdf
>>18217 Still reading and trying to understand….. Not a legal beagle. But it just makes sense to de-certify pending the audit results rather than let the certification stand pending the audit results. If the audit (and/or any additional information) proves fraud or other improprieties, they're good to go for extraordinary measures. If there's no there there, recertify. OTOH, if CM is right, and the paper is the play book, maybe it's GA and not PA that is supposed to be in play.
>>18214 Moar from Edward Foley. Spoopy how close he was to GA. If the GA legislature is going to act and have safe harbor status, they'd better hurry up. "Six days before December 14th" looms.
from the paper: And, yet, it is not entirely impossible to make the contrary argument, especially if the state legislature acts to make its direct appointment of electors before the safe-harbor deadline of six days before Monday, December 14. This argument would depend, again, on the claim that the state legislature was responding to an emergency analogous to a cyberattack. Surely if there were a cyberattack—this argument would go—a direct legislative appointment of electors would be entitled to safe-harbor status if made within the requisite deadline, in order to avoid depriving the state of an opportunity to participate in the presidential election. This direct legislative appointment would occur pursuant to residual emergency authority that existed in state law prior to Tuesday, November 3. There is always such residual legislative authority in the context of a genuine emergency, this argument might add. Because the state legislature viewed the blue shift during the canvass as a theft of the popular will of the state, comparable to a cyberattack and thus an equivalent emergency, the direct legislative appointment of electors is entitled to safe harbor status in the one emergency situation as much as the other.
So yesterday GA legislators got an eyeful and an earful. They need to declare an emergency situation and claim what Rudy called their 'plenary' right to choose the electors. Meanwhile, PDJT has declared that elections are in the realm of national security. What are the GA legislature, the Gov. and the State AG waiting for, an engraved invitation? Maybe moar important is Why are they waiting?