Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers is expected to stonewall State Representative Mark Finchem’s historic resolution to reclaim Arizona’s fraudulent 2020 electors.
The Gateway Pundit reported that Mark Finchem introduced HCR 2033, a resolution to set aside and decertify three 2020 county elections and reclaim Arizona’s 2020 Presidential electors using the State Legislature’s plenary powers, granted by the Constitution.
Speaker Rusty Bowers later told reporters that this resolution was “obviously unconstitutional and profoundly unwise” and indicated that he would not allow this bill to receive fair consideration.
When speaking to TGP correspondent Jordan Conradson, Finchem challenged Rusty Bowers and his attorneys to a public debate on the constitutionality of HCR 2033.
Finchem: The purpose of this body is to hear bills, to deliberate on proposals, to examine public policy. Frankly, I was shocked at the statement by the Speaker of the House. That tells me that he has every intention of blocking the passage, or at least even the consideration of ACR 2033. And if people want to read the evidence that is contained in the nine pages of this document, it is damning evidence. And anyone who denies that the evidence exists, they’re willfully disregarding the evidence that’s been turned over to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. The document itself is an indictment of sloppy process and criminal behavior. Many of the things that are noted in there are crimes in the Arizona Elections Procedure Manual. Okay, so if we’re a nation of laws, and we live under the rule of law, that means that when you have things that happen in an election that make that election irredeemably compromised and with the jurisprudence that is listed on the last two pages of the resolution, items 12 and 13 detail the authority under the US Constitution. And there’s jurisprudence that goes all the way back to the late 1800s. That talks about the plenary authority of the legislature to step in, when a crime has been committed, and it affects an election. So for the Speaker of the House to say, “well, it’s unconstitutional?” I’m happy to put my constitutional scholars and lawyers up against whoever is advising him. And frankly, I think it would be great for us to have a public debate so that the people know what’s really going on instead of having it behind the doors of the legislature. This is not going away. And until this is fully examined, and the people are fully satisfied, they are going to believe that justice has been denied. And I suppose that’s one of the reasons that I’ve been elevated to some sort of champion for the people who believe that justice is denied. Now, was that the intention of this? No. But that seems to have been how it’s always played out. Now. What’s the next step? There will be members who are probably going to receive a lot of pressure and a lot of encouragement from their constituents. There may be people that come alongside and say, “Look, we really want this to come to the floor and we want to have the opportunity to vote on it.” Beyond that, we’ll just let this thing sit for a little while and let people contemplate their next move.
Conradson: What about Attorney General Brnovich? Do you think that this resolution will put some fire under his feet, get him moving on some kind of update?
Finchem: I don’t know that The Attorney General needs to have fire under his feet. You know, there’s a lot of people who are trying to put pressure on Attorney General Mark Brnovich. He has pulled resources and I have this from their internal folks. He’s pulled resources from all throughout the Attorney General’s office to do what I call gang tackle this thing. I mean, he’s got people from all the different investigative units who have come into the election integrity unit. The mountain of evidence, by the way, the stuff that I listed in the resolution, only scratches the surface. That’s right. There’s so much more evidence that they have to go through and if what I believe is happening, the mountain of evidence, the people who had to be involved in this in order for that evidence to even exist, and I praise Congressman Andy Biggs for really putting sellers in gates and hot seat for saying, Okay, here’s your you’re telling us certain things that just don’t make sense, especially when we look at the electronic record. In that exchange, that too is evidence. So, I think that where we are at this point is, I would love to see a debate between the constitutional scholars that have backed me up that helped me put this thing together this resolution and the individuals that the Speaker is relying on, I think he’s made an unsupportable claim. Okay. It’s time to lay our cards on the table. Here’s my cards. I’m waiting to see yours.
Contact Rusty Bowers and demand decertification of Arizona’s Maricopa, Pima, and Yuma Counties.