To the Editor:

In response to “Shocked by Stefanik Violating Oath of Office” which appeared in the Dec. 18-24 issue of North Country This Week: The writer uses hyperbole to accuse the congresswoman of violating her oath of office and “challenging our democracy” by filling a legal brief to support the Texas’s lawsuit to the SCOTUS regarding the irregularities surrounding the votes in four states.

The president and the states have the constitutional right to challenge an election. Al Gore did the same thing in 2000 after the close race with George Bush to demand a recount in specific counties in Florida. That challenge went on until mid-December of that year. Democrat Stacy Abrams herself still has not conceded after clearly losing the election for the office of Governor of Georgia in 2018. To blame Ms. Stefanik for “Violating her oath of office” for doing what others have done in the past is outrageously unfair, unjust, and libelous concerning her character.

Though SCOTUS rejected the lawsuit, there are still viable charges to be filed regarding voting fraud and abuse of state powers, particularly against Pennsylvania. That state clearly violated the sacrosanct division between the court and legislation bodies when the court changed voting procedures instead of the legislation voting to do so. That was an example of the bad actors seeking “to maintain authoritarian control” as the writer stated, instead of Rep. Stefanik.

Furthermore, over 60 individuals have come forward, having signed affidavits with the threat of imprisonment for perjury to testify witnessing voting fraud. Those have yet to be fully investigated. Along with incredible mathematical odds that Biden received a 99% influx of votes after midnight on the night of the election, especially from counties in four swing states where significant numbers of Republican voters resided, is a red flag that all was not what it should be, based on the previous behavior of past presidential elections.

Instead of criticizing those who filed suits concerning election fraud as abusing democracy and the Constitution, the writer should be grateful there is a mechanism provided in our system to investigate suspicious actions that threaten the integrity of an election. This demonstrates the far-sighted wisdom of the checks and balances installed in our Constitution by the Founding Fathers.

SCOTUS throwing out the lawsuit does not mean those who presented it had evil intent. Such an accusation would have to be supported by evidence of malice and established in a court of law. Unless the writer can present concrete evidence of Ms. Stefanik demonstrating criminal intent in supporting the Texas lawsuit, he himself is guilty of making a false and baseless charge as to her motivation. That sir, is truly shocking.

Ron Shirtz

Rensselaer Falls