To the editor:

As a responsible citizen, I would like to address Steven Flanders’ response to my previous letter to the editor.

Yes, Mr. Flanders, a legislator may be within his/her rights to object to an electoral vote; however, such objection should be based on facts and hard evidence, not on lies and vague statements such as, “People say ...”, “I think ...”, “It was reported ...”, “Someone told me ...”, etc. Every single allegation of impropriety in the voting process was investigated and proven false. Trump demanded recounts in certain states. In some states, votes were recounted more than once. He still lost. He demanded that the governor of Georgia “find” nearly 12,000 votes so that he could “win.” The governor refused to do so, and Trump immediately launched a verbal war against the man.

Trump and his campaign filed more than 50 lawsuits in various states, all of which were thrown out due to lack of evidence. He then demanded that Vice President Pence “overturn” the electoral vote in order for him to win re-election. And this is what Roger Marshall supported. He perpetuated Donald Trump’s lies and delusions. He approved Trump’s actions in attempting to throw out the results of a legally held national election. In voting to reject the votes of the citizens of Pennsylvania, Arizona, and other states, he violated his own oath of office, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.

Furthermore, the sole purpose of the Kraken Caucus’s demands to reject votes was to disrupt the constitutionally mandated duty of Congress – not to vote or decide who would be the next president – but to count and confirm the electoral votes, and to affirm the votes of the American people. And, in my opinion, based on Marshall’s record of unquestioning support of Trump’s policies, he objected to the electoral votes of states in which Trump lost in order to appease Trump and thereby avoid his vindictive wrath.

As to the use of the word “insurrection,” the definition Mr. Flanders provided in his letter was a perfect description of the events that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. I’m sure that if Mr. Flanders were one of the unfortunate members of Congress who were threatened, whose desks and belongings were rifled through and stolen, who cowered in fear for their lives while waiting for a chance to escape, he would not feel that it was an “overblown” reaction to call it an insurrection. The domestic terrorists – spurred on by Trump’s relentlessly violent rhetoric throughout his presidency and final exhortation to march on the capitol and fight like hell – erected makeshift gallows, complete with a noose. They roamed through the halls shouting out threats against Nancy Pelosi and chanting, “Hang Pence.” Calling what happened an insurrection is simply a statement of fact. And, since Sen. Marshall continues his support of Donald Trump and has in no way condemned Trump’s role in inciting the insurrection, it appears that he supports the insurrection as well. I stand behind my call for the resignation or recall of Sen. Roger Marshall.

Sharon McGinness

Larned