Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said in a recent op-ed that he and others have been wrongly accused of inciting violence simply because they chose to object to the electoral college certification.
“In the past, when Democrats objected, they were praised for standing up for democracy,” Hawley wrote in Southeast Missourian. “In 2005, when Democrats objected to counting Ohio’s electoral votes, Nancy Pelosi praised the objections, saying, ‘This debate is fundamental to our democracy’ and ‘we are witnessing democracy at work’.”
“This time around, anyone who objected has been called an ‘insurrectionist.’ Sadly, much of the media and many members of the Washington establishment want to deceive Americans into thinking those who raised concerns incited violence, simply by voicing the concern,” he continued. “That’s false. And the allegation itself is corrosive and dangerous.”
Hawley pointed out that Democrats objected to the elections of 2000, 2004 and 2016–all of which were won by a Republican candidate.
“They were within their rights to do so,” Hawley wrote, noting that that is exactly how the process should play out.
In 2005 a group of Democrats objected to counting Ohio’s 20 electoral votes after they insisted that Ohio’s election was riddled with widespread “irregularities” that favored former President George W. Bush, according to CNN.
Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.
A dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, along with a few other representatives tried to block counting Florida’s electoral votes in 2000, according to The New York Times. The group argued black voters were disenfranchised.
Democrats objected to the 2016 election results as well, forcing President-elect Joe Biden to gavel down House Democrats who were without a needed Senator to have their objections heard, according to CNN.
Hawley objected to the certification of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes on the basis that “the state failed to follow its own constitution.”
Hawley cited Pennsylvania’s mass mail-in ballot send out and deadline extension as unconstitutional.
The U.S Supreme Court refused to expedite Pennsylvania Republicans’ challenge to a state Supreme Court order in October that allowed ballots that arrived three days after Nov. 3 to be counted as valid even if they lacked a postmark. The refusal was made on the understanding that Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar would issue guidance ordering late ballots be kept separate.
Boockvar initially complied and ordered late ballots be kept separate should the Supreme Court rule the ballot extension is unconstitutional. Days later she changed the guidance and allowed them to be counted.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito rebuked Boockvar on Nov. 6 and again ordered that late ballots must be segregated and secured. If the ballots were to be counted, then they were to be counted separately.
On Monday the Supreme Court refused to expedite consideration of the suit, among other election lawsuits. The case, however, could still eventually be heard by the high court, though it will not have any effect on the actual 2020 election results. It will, however, set a precedent.
Hawley said he also objected because of alleged big tech interference.
In the weeks leading up to the election, Twitter locked The New York Post out of their account for publishing a story on Hunter Biden. The Post released a story mid-October that showed emails allegedly from Biden’s laptop that indicate President-elect Biden and his son met with Burisma officials in 2015.
Facebook also slowed the circulation of the story, saying that they had to get it reviewed by third-party fact checkers.
Hawley immediately criticized the decision to block the circulation.
Given his concerns, Hawley ultimately pushed forward with his objection even after a mob stormed the Capitol Building.
“Some wondered why I stuck with my objection following the violence at the Capitol,” Hawley continued. “The reason is simple: I will not bow to a lawless mob, or allow criminals to drown out the legitimate concerns of my constituents.”
LifeNews Note: Brianna Lyman writes for Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.