We all know President Trump has refused to concede. For me, being an ardent supporter of Trump, and following as closely as I have, I completely understand why. We have all heard about the court challenges and lawsuits that have been brought. There has been mounds of misinformation and misreporting regarding this. For example, the media loves to report how "50 Trump lawsuits" have been lost, or turned down by the courts. But this is simply not true. One of President Trump's attorneys, Jenna Ellis, reiterated yesterday it is not the Trump team that has brought those suits. Those have all been brought by private individuals and were mostly thrown out by the courts due to "Lack of Standing". The Trump team was not surprised, nor troubled by this fact, as they are concentrating on their own efforts. The team has only brought just a few lawsuits, albeit without much success, thus far.
We of course have all heard about what was probably the biggest and most publicized lawsuit. It was brought by the state of Texas. Now again, this was not orchestrated by President Trump. It was the Attorney General of the State of Texas bringing suit against four states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. The suit was brought in regard to the illegal changing of election laws in each of these states. The states' actions in effect, disenfranchised the votes of all the other states. Seventeen other individual states joined Texas in an effort of support. Unfortunately, (and it can be argued, unconstitutionally) the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) refused to hear this case. Contrary to what people believe, it was not due to lack of evidence that the Supreme Court refused to hear it. It was due again to what they call "Lack of Standing" under Article III, of the US Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts cited that Texas did not demonstrate clearly how another state affected their state's general election. In reality, Texas wasn't given opportunity. Mark Levin (Constitutional lawyer and scholar) has an excellent commentary as to why this was so negligent on the part of the Supreme Court.
None of the evidence has been seen in ANY court, thus far as they have all refused to let it be presented for various "Trumped" up reasons. Pardon the pun. In this case, it fits. I suspect if it involved any person other than Trump, the case would have been allowed to be presented. The Supreme Court has allowed judicial review before; case in point - Obamacare.
At any rate, the evidence the Trump Team has gathered is astronomical. The team has hundreds of sworn affidavits taken under the penalty of perjury from willing witnesses, testifying as to what they saw on election night, throughout many states. As well, there is no doubt in Pennsylvania and Georgia, election laws were unconstitutionally changed before the election to the benefit of Democrats. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution gives state legislators the sole right to make election laws. The Founders of our great nation, did this intentionally because they saw the danger in overreach from the federal government, or from a state judiciary. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan all allowed Democratic governors, State Election Committees, and/or state courts to unconstitutionally change election laws in their states to the benefit of Democrats. This alone, is reason enough to bring the lawsuits the Trump team is bringing. In Pennsylvania, the SCOTUS has finally agreed to hear their case. Unfortunately, it is not on the docket until January 22nd, 2021 which is, of course, after Inauguration on January 20th. And yes, I point to these Democrat held states as the problem. In Georgia, there were some members of the Republican Party who betrayed unity and cohesiveness of the election, by contributing to the undermining of long-held election laws. But it has been primarily done by Democratic leadership in states controlled by Democrats.
The Supreme Court had every responsibility to hear these cases. But the court failed. They ducked the responsibility for reasons we can only surmise. I suspect it was out of fear of what might happen if they actually saw the evidence. And that would be that they would have to resolve among themselves to find a solution to the fact that this election was indeed stolen and that there is in fact, mountains of evidence proving it. I also suspect it was out of fear of what may happen because of what we saw this summer in so many cities across America that are ran by Democrats. It's hard to forget the "peaceful protests" and "Summer of Love". ( Please, note sarcasm!)
Now, there are so many suppositions and narratives making the rounds, it is almost impossible to keep up, or monitor. They of course involve a number of attorneys desiring to take a variety of directions. I just want to explain what I have learned. I hope to make it a bit easier to squelch rumors and correct things that are simply not true. I have used sources I trust, to finally bring this all together for me. One is a website I sought early on, that fully explains the election process. I also follow Jay Sekulow and his son, Jordan, with ACLJ whom I have listened to and trusted decades before Jay was ever counsel to this President. I also trust the other two most prominent members of the Trump Team, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. I have long followed Rudy, being well-pleased with everything he did as the mayor of New York. And more recently, I have researched Jenna Ellis and could not be more pleased with what I have learned about her. I trust the President's team. I have also used American Thinker as a reliable news source and it is another one that I have followed for years. And of course, Governor Mike Huckabee is a reputable and trustworthy source of information.
So with those sources cited for my facts, let me explain exactly what I believe is happening with this messy, messy election MESS. Yeah, I know that's redundant. I will attempt to give the mini-version of what has been occurring, and attempt to make this as concise as possible.
As I have already stated, the Constitution leaves election laws to the states. Each state may vary to some degree with how they handle their elections within their individual state law. That's okay. That is what the Founders intended, i.e. for our government to be handled at the most local levels and keep the federal government at bay as much as possible. States are obligated, however, to obey anything which is laid out in our US Constitution, as under Article II, for example.
Now with this election getting so messy and with so many calls of fraud, we have necessarily had to look at exactly what the courts' responsibility is in each of the states where questions and problems were presented. Initially a case would be brought to state courts and state Supreme Courts before being brought to the SCOTUS. And even before that, the acting Supreme Court Justice of the district in question would give directive first. There are 12 districts or "circuits". There are four that are especially in play at this time. For example, in Pennsylvania which is the Third Circuit, the Justice overseeing is Justice Alito. In Georgia, which is Eleventh Circuit, the Supreme Court Justice who has jurisdiction is Justice Clarence Thomas. Wisconsin is the Seventh Circuit, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett having oversight. And Michigan, is the Sixth Circuit, under Justice Brett Kavanaugh. I mention this, because in the final outcome this is important. It is going to be indicative as to why and if a case might be heard by the Supreme Court. Thanks to directive from Justice Alito, Pennsylvania has had votes that were to be left uncounted, as they were questionable in authenticity and therefore their legitimacy. PA disobeyed this order. This case will eventually be heard at the Supreme Court on January 22nd, 2021. Likewise in Georgia, if and when things go awry, it will be Justice Clarence Thomas who has authority; and who has proven time and again that he cares more about the Constitution, than he does politics.
On another note, there has been a lot made of the fact that the President has removed Sidney Powell and Lin Wood from his team. It seems the President has distanced himself from both of them. Jordan Sekulow explained this well in a recent interview with David Brody (from CBN) on his podcast, the Water Cooler. (That link was not available, but Just News has an article regarding that conversation.) It isn't necessarily that the President doesn't respect these two attorneys. And it certainly isn't that they are doing anything that is not according to the Constitution. Rather, it is simply a difference in the choice of direction the President wants to go. Jordan admitted he was even uncertain at times what that would be. This is why it has been so confusing and what appeared as if they were all going different directions and working against each other. They are simply working with in Constitutional law on separate issues. It has been reported on some news outlets that Sidney Powell and Lin Wood were encouraging the President to enact Martial Law. No one was certain as to which direction the President would take until he recently made clear he was not going to impose the Insurrection Act or Martial Law, even though he is Constitutionally allowed to do so should he decide. I like how Jordan explains so kindly in this interview that it was not out of any disrespect for Powell, simply different desires to the outcome. There have been groups advocating for Martial Law. But the Trump Team has made it clear they are not a part of this and that they do not support this effort. Jenna Ellis has been especially diligent the last few days in getting this word to citizens.
Now unfortunately, none of this has been reported accurately in mainstream media. With this being the case, it is in fact extremely dangerous because it leads people to believe the election is a done deal. Ask your friends. Most people believe this election is over. But it isn't. Yes, the electors have all certified their votes by December 14th, leading people to believe that means it is over. But in reality, those certifications are merely fluff - all for appearance. In truth, the actual election is not completed until January 6th, when both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate are required by the Constitution to gather in session to finalize these votes. If any representative has doubts or questions, they can contest the results. It merely takes one person from each chamber of Congress - one Representative and one Senator to do so. Once contested, then a debate will begin as to the reasoning and legitimacy. This could go on for several hours and can occur with each slate presented. Further, in some states there have been two slates of electors submitted. It is up to this body to decide which one will be accepted. Finally, it is the Vice President of the United States that has the final authority regarding the outcome. In fact, according to the Constitution the VP does not even have to accept either slate presented if there are two, but simply explain there is not ample reason to accept either slate.
There is the possibility Vice President Pence will choose not to contest the votes. There is also precedent of that. Richard Nixon did exactly that in 1960, saying it would make governance too difficult. There is also precedent of a Vice President, contesting to his own benefit of winning the election - President Thomas Jefferson. Clearly there is precedent for both scenarios.
It is my belief, with the Supreme Court date of January 22nd in Pennsylvania and the contest being held up in Georgia, that is reason enough for the VP to not accept either slate of electors in those states. There are also pending efforts in Wisconsin and Michigan that could give the Vice President pause. If the VP does not accept the slates, it would remove the votes from Biden, but they would NOT be handed over to President Trump. They simply would not be counted. If this happens in each of these contested States, it will put the electoral votes back to where they were before all this chaos began on the night of the November 3rd election - with seven states in question. If all are not accepted, it leaves Biden with 222 electoral votes and President Trump with 232. If this is the scenario that plays out, according to the 12th Amendment, the election will be given to President Trump.
It will appear to half of our society, that it is Trump who stole the election, when in fact he has done everything to the letter of the law. There is tons of proof that there was fraud in this election; and in fact, that the election was stolen from President Trump. Yes, there will be rioting in the streets when this is Constitutionally resolved. And yes, we can thank mainstream media for that for failing to report any of this even though it is all within the confines of the Constitution. Media have instead been acting as if it is all a done deal. That is going to come back to bite all of us. We can also point a finger at the Supreme Court of the United States for not having guts enough to hear the Texas case. I'm sure there is enough blame to go around. Including silent citizens who have not risen up to help right this obvious injustice. The last I checked, 83% of Republicans, 30% of independents, and 17% of Democrats believe the election was stolen. We cannot let concerns like that left unresolved. In truth, a stolen election is something we should ALL care about, regardless of party.* We are no longer America, if this continues and we can no longer trust our election process. May God have mercy. May truth be revealed.
_________________
For additional reading, I highly recommend this article from Newt Gingrich.
*Edited December 28, 2020
** Updated January 4, 2021. Updated with new, recently released articles and information.
The Texas court rejected Louie Gohmert's appeal the next day.
And this:
I had the hardest time finding any comment from Jay Sekulow during this time. He and his son Jordan were remaining silent on behalf of ACLJ. Sometime later, I found this clip from Jay saying that it is not Constitutional for the Vice President to nullify an election. I am sure that is accurate in that context. And I fully trust Jay Sekulow and ACLJ. This clip is referring to that discussion. However, I do not believe that is what Trump was asking of the Vice President.
Trump was only asking that when they were to meet in session on January 6th to certify the votes, that he stop to hear the contests from the Senators and Representatives that were bringing questions. That is perfectly fine to do that and it is Constitutional. The Democrats did it in 2016 when Hillary ran against Trump. They did it during the Bush/Gore election. It is standard practice. This time, however, it did not take place because of the Capitol riots of January 6th. Those riots most certainly did not help Republicans. They didn't get to bring their questions regarding the slates on that day, as they were planning on doing and had every right to do. I believe that is the only thing that President Trump was asking of Vice President Pence. Should fraud or problems be exposed during those discussions, then the VP would have a right to send those slates back to the states, as I explained in this article. But instead, the riots took place, and then Pence had a plane to catch...obviously that plane was more important...in my view.
Please see this link (or below) for Sekulow's view on Pence nullifying the election. Keep in mind, that wasn't what Pence was asked to do.
*If you find a broken link, it is because the source has not allowed it to be used on this server. Instead, I have also written out the link below for you to copy and paste into your browser:
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6214542601001#sp=show-clips
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jenna-ellis-trump-campaign-legal-adviser-martial-law-reaction
