RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/12/26/new-york-democratic-party-boss-had-this-to-say-to-aoc-about-primarying-chuck-schumer-n2582152

Jay Jacobs, chairman of the New York State Democratic Committee, made it clear where he stands when it comes to rumors of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) preparing a primary challenge against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). 

“I think it would be a primary driven by ambition more than by need,” Jacobs told the New York Post.

Rumors have circulated for months that AOC will attempt to unseat Sen. Schumer in 2022, but Jacobs told The Post that such a primary challenge between Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer would be a loss in more ways than one. 

“Chuck Schumer has been a progressive force in the state for decades,” said the Democratic chairman. “She has a constituency that admires her and supports her, and they’re in her community, and I think it would be a loss for them if she were to do that.”

And Ocasio-Cortez would “absolutely” lose her challenge against Schumer, warned Jacobs, while admitting that he has never met the young lawmaker. 

“We’ve never met. I would look forward to doing that,” Jacobs added. “I am open to that at any time.”

In an interview earlier this year, AOC said she was focused on winning her re-election this past November but then setting her sights on higher office. 

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

Dominion Voting Systems is presently going on attack.  Attorneys Thomas Clare and Megan Meier, representing Dominion, sent letters to President Donald Trump’s supporters demanding that the cease making false and “defamatory” claims about the company’s role in voter fraud.  Their letter to Mellissa Carone, dated 22 December 2020, has been posted on the internet.  The letter reveals that Dominion may not be competently represented.  The attorneys claim that Carone was Giuliani’s “star witness” who made outlandish accusations “without a shred of corroborating evidence.” Who designated Mellissa Carone a “star witness”?  Giuliani had several witnesses.

The attorneys claim that Carone was “hired through a staffing agency for one day to clean glass on machines and complete other menial tasks.”  She was simply a cleaning lady.  John Poulos, Dominion CEO, testified that her role was “really limited to a type one type of technician who provides — she would have been told how to clean the glass read heads or at least she should have been.”  Poulos concedes that Carone was a “technician” but still minimized her role.  Wikibious describes her as a “contracted IT worker who was responsible for fixing malfunctioning vote-counting machines at Michigan’s TCF Center.”

Carone is warned of possible litigation.  “Litigation regarding these issues is imminent.”  They present her with a list of demands that would require a full-time staff to meet.  She has to “preserve all documents relating to such claims,” including “any and all communications she may have had with Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Jenna Ellis, Rudy Giuliani and any other member of the Trump campaign.” They also demanded “preservation of records for every person who has compensated her—or any entity related to her—for making public statements about Dominion.”  

The demand for various documents is nearly 400 words long.  They then inform her that, “The laws and rules prohibiting destruction of evidence apply to electronically stored information in the same manner that they apply to other evidence.”  The laws are spelled out clearly in 18 U.S. Code§ 1519.  The only problem is that this statute deals with Federal litigation.  Clare and Meier have not even begun their court case.  Perhaps they believe Carone will not be advised by several attorneys that they have no authority.  They are simply trying to intimidate her.

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

In accordance with Art VI of the Constitution, every sitting Supreme Court justice has taken an oath swearing that he or she will “support this Constitution.” The Constitution the justices have sworn to protect is predicated upon free and fair elections so that the government reflects the will of the People. When the justices refuse to protect election integrity, they are violating their sworn oath and putting our constitutional republic at grave risk.

I recently wrote a suggested Supreme Court opinion. It said the Court must decide “credible and significant” claims of election wrongdoing on their merits before elected officials are sworn in—-except for the President, where the Constitution provides a fallback political method of election. My article suggested what the Supreme Court should do. This article discusses their inaction and warns of the consequences if the justices continue to run and hide.

Americans paying attention to the 2020 Election must be baffled by our courts. A thousand sworn statements about election wrongdoing, bizarre 4 a.m. “vote spikes” for one candidate, hundreds of thousands of ballots driven from one state to the another, counting machines with 68% error rates, etc., etc. Such claims should at least get a day in court.

Yet so far, they can’t get a sniff. With few exceptions, no state or federal court in our country has had the courage to look at the merits of these claims. The most significant challenge to our Constitutional Republic since the first Civil War can’t get a parking ticket.

The Pennsylvania Supremes liked “laches” or simply put, “you waited too long.” The claim asserted was simple—- the Pennsylvania Constitution does not authorize mail-in voting so the legislature can’t do it. (One brave judge said “good point” and was promptly swept away by her betters). The Pennsylvania Supremes said you had to sue before the election. Of course, if you had, they would have said “go away you haven’t been injured.” Welcome to the legal Land of Oz.

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

There were voluminous reports, from eyewitnesses and experts, of widespread election fraud in the so-called battle states and beyond.  Specific allegations were made, and evidence of election rules violations and statistical anomalies were collected.  Yet the courts refused to listen to virtually all witnesses and experts, rejected most of the evidence, and refused to subpoena more evidence requested by the plaintiffs.  Many state government officials and some top representatives of companies supplying voting machines and software categorically denied any election fraud.

So, on the one hand, there is plenty of evidence strongly suggesting that the widely observed election fraud took place during the 2020 presidential elections.  On the other hand, all we have are assurances of the election fraud–deniers that there was no election fraud, which were later changed to admissions that although election fraud did take place, it wasn’t large enough to sway the results.  No verifiable facts that would clearly invalidate the specific election fraud allegations were presented to the public as of time of this writing, while quite a lot of obstruction of investigations, like denials to subject the vote-counting software and hardware to examination by independent experts, took place.  Some of this obstruction had all appearances of a cover-up.

I must say that anyone who, knowing the above, claims that Joe Biden has received required majorities of legitimate votes to become a duly elected president is either stupid or willing to cover up the truth about the rigged elections that we have allowed to continue in America.

I am not going to analyze the stupid.  However, I would like to look into possible reasons why an intelligent observer would opt for cover-up of election fraud if it did take place.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/12/26/legal-memo-outlines-strategy-for-trump-to-succeed-having-supreme-court-hear-election-dispute-n1286650

The Western Journal has published a legal memo written by William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney that, they say, “outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks.” The legal memo was reportedly sent to President Trump prior to it being published on The Western Journal.

The authors of the memo contend that by refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court” abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court,” resulting in intense criticism that they had evaded “the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.”

“However,” the authors say, “even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff.”

Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause.

Olsen and McSweeney say that if this happened, it would “leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires. The United States suffered an injury when those four states “violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature.”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/12/27/heres-how-a-republican-could-end-up-speaker-of-the-house-instead-of-nancy-pelosi-n1287467

According to a report, Democrats are panicking, fearful that the COVID-19 pandemic could prevent Nancy Pelosi from being re-elected as House speaker despite Democrats holding a majority in the chamber.

Is this really possible? Well, let’s see.

While House members can vote by proxy due to emergency rules adopted in May to protect members from getting and spreading COVID-19, but, as The Hill reports, “the proxy-voting rule expires with the new Congress, requiring lawmakers to be in the Capitol in person if they want to participate in the Jan. 3 floor vote for Speaker.”

New rules governing the 117th Congress happen after the vote for speaker.

House Democrats have been taking advantage of this proxy-voting rule in significant numbers. On December 18, nearly 90 Democrats voted by proxy.

This means that candidates for speaker of the House must receive a majority of the votes cast in person to be elected speaker. Democrats already have a thin majority of 222 seats following the 2020 election, and three moderate Democrats say they don’t intend to vote for Pelosi when the vote takes place on January 3. In addition, several Democrats have health conditions that have kept them from the Capitol in 2020. It would only take a small number of Democrats being exposed to COVID-19 prior to the vote for Pelosi to potentially be in trouble.

“COVID is a wild card,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). “If we have sick members who cannot come back, and we only have a four-vote majority, it throws our entire advent of the 117th Congress in peril — a smooth advent.”