RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/we_dont_need_scotus_to_win.html

The Texas suit, later joined by other states, against Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, was a nice try, but it was always a long shot.  Of course SCOTUS would be reluctant to grab so much power by ordering state legislatures to seat the right electors.  Why?  Because the power is already in the hands of the legislatures to do this. 

Though we are non-lawyers, let’s read these laws together, interpreting them minimally and plainly (something lawyers seem incapable of doing).  The first federal law for our purposes, titled “Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors,” says:

If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

So this provision, if I understand it correctly, says that states may appoint electors after a controversy (“controversy or contest”).  Now, what happens when fraud and illegalities are so egregious that they help one candidate exclusively and harm only one candidate in such a way that it is unclear which electors shall be appointed?  That definitely qualifies to become a “controversy or contest.”  The provision opens the door to each state legislature having the right to determine how the state can appoint electors (“appointment of electors” and “ascertainment of electors”).  (This is already clear in the Twelfth Amendment, but here this provision gives more clarity after a controversy.)  Bottom line: The electors for Biden, the “fake winner,” can be set aside if that is what each individual state law allows. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/after_scotuss_knife_in_the_back_what_trump_must_do_now.html

Today, Donald Trump is the most dangerous man on the planet.  At this moment, America needs him more than he needs America.  Trump could shoot the biggest middle finger ever to the entire nation, retire to a private island, or his penthouse, or his Florida compound, overcook his prime steaks and douse them with ketchup, and really — who could blame him?  It’s not as if he’ll outlive his money.  He doesn’t need us.  He doesn’t need anyone.  He has “F-U” money, and unlike others with big money — such as Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and everyone ever named Kennedy — he doesn’t have this sick psychotic need to rule over others for 60 years of government life.  Trump is the freest man on the planet tonight.  He needs nothing. 

We, however, are no longer the freest people on the planet.  We need some help.

Our feckless Supreme Court has chosen guaranteed cocktail party invitations with the beautiful people in the swamp over the Constitutional Republic — and favored phony pieces of mailed ballots and theoretical Dominion algorithms over flesh-and-blood voters.

As it stands, President Donald Trump faces what may be the most distasteful test of patriotism any president has ever faced.  And it may be among the most important ever as well.  To be fair, this is not the horrible choice of instantly killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatant citizens — including kids — the kind of decisions surrounding the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in World War 2.  Clearly not.  But on a personal gut level, it must be an even more bitter choice.  And again, in this, we need him more than he needs us — or anyone, or anything. 

We will find out whether or not Trump can maintain his love of country and commitment to duty, just hours and days after that country’s core institutions have proven to be incredibly corrupt and immovably stacked against him and his voters.  Can he muster enough love of America to overcome what must be a well earned deep well of hate and resentment toward this nations’ highest court, its entire media complex, the entertainment industry, and the entire educational establishment?  After four years of unprecedented and unimaginable hate and lies from all quarters, can he possibly still give a damn? 

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/11/will-anyone-face-any-consequences-for-gaslighting-americans-on-the-hunter-biden-story/

Will anyone in media, Big Tech, or the expert class be held accountable for claiming the Biden family investigations were a fantasy Russian disinformation plot?

So now that it is overwhelmingly evident the New York Post’s initial Hunter and Jim Biden story wasn’t based on hacked material, wasn’t Russian misinformation, is clearly something people deserved to know before voting, and that big tech and America’s corporate media tried to make sure that didn’t happen – and that once again rather than alter their behavior or ask for forgiveness, they’re going to instead attempt to gaslight you about all of it – I have a number of questions.

First, when did Joe Biden first learn that his repeated claims the stories about his son and his brother were Fake News – or in his phrasing, debunked, smears, and the like – were in fact false? When was he briefed on this exactly, and by whom? And why, given that every effort was made to distance Hunter from the campaign, did the defensive announcement come from the Transition instead of just from Hunter himself if Joe, as he has always claimed, has nothing to do with this?

Second, William Barr reportedly worked very hard to keep the Hunter Biden investigation hidden from the public – something that won’t help his standing with the conspiracy minded. While I can understand why this was done, will there be some explanation offered as to why this wasn’t an unusual act of deference, influenced by the 2016 concerns over James Comey’s behavior? Andrew McCarthy offers an explanation here, one which I am not sure will satisfy critics who believe American voters at least deserved to know the rumored investigation was real much earlier in the process.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/529839-all-eyes-on-supreme-court-in-texas-fight

All eyes turned to the Supreme Court on Friday after a final round of briefs were submitted in Texas’s unprecedented and widely panned effort to upend President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, teeing up the justices to take action in the case. 

The consensus among election law experts is that the court will roundly reject Texas’s extraordinary request to invalidate Biden’s win in the four key battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin. 

With the filing of its reply brief on Friday morning, Texas cleared the way for the court to issue an order on its request for a preliminary injunction, perhaps later that same day. Some court watchers expect the court will act no later than Sunday, ahead of the next day’s Electoral College meetings to formalize Biden’s win over President Trump. 

The Texas brief Friday came after the filing of amicus briefs from dozens of state attorneys general who carved out positions on either side of the dispute, 106 House Republican members who are backing Texas and a request by Trump to join the Lone Star State as a party to the lawsuit.

If legal experts’ predictions are borne out and the court denies Texas’s bid, one variable that could affect the timing of such a move is whether any of the nine justices plan to write a statement accompanying the court’s order. 

In two fairly recent instances, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court’s most conservative members, expressed disagreement over their colleagues’ dismissal of a pair of disputes that pitted states against each other, noting their belief that the court is obligated to hear interstate suits.