RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/14/the-supreme-courts-rejection-of-texass-election-lawsuit-failed-the-constitution/

Late Friday, the Supreme Court rejected Texas’s election-related lawsuit against fellow states Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. The Supreme Court was right—and wrong.

A week ago today, Texas filed a Motion for Leave to file a Bill of Complaint in the U.S. Supreme Court against the four states, charging constitutional violations related to the 2020 election. Texas also sought preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the putative defendant states from taking further actions related to the election.

Two days later, the attorneys general for the named states filed their responses, all asserting Texas lacked “standing” or the right to sue, because Texas, as a state, suffered no injury from the claimed violations of the election code. Texas countered with a reply brief early Friday.

A bevy of additional filings also hit the Supreme Court’s docket, with states, legislators, governors, even random Americans seeking to file amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs either supporting or condemning Texas’ lawsuit. President Trump and a few states also sought to intervene or join in the case.

But Friday evening the Supreme Court closed the case by denying Texas’s request to file its complaint against the four swing states. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the unsigned short order, agreed to by seven justices, read. Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint “for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.”

Must the Supreme Court Address State Complaints?

Justice Samuel Alito issued a separate statement, joined by Justice Thomas, explaining that in their view the Supreme Court lacks the “discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction,” and thus Alito and Thomas would have granted Texas’s “motion to file the bill of complaint.” Significantly, the two-justice statement continued: “but [we] would not grant other relief, and [we] express no view on any other issue.”

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/14/after-examining-antrim-county-voting-machines-asog-concludes-dominion-intentionally-designed-to-create-systemic-fraud/

The cyber-security firm that conducted a forensic examination of 22 Dominion Voting tabulators in Michigan has determined that “Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed” to “create systemic fraud,” and that election results of Antrim County should not have been certified. Allied Security Operations Group (ASOG) said in a report published Monday morning that it observed an error rate of 68.05 percent in the fatally flawed machines.

Earlier Monday morning, Michigan state judge Kevin Elensheimer ordered the release of the the Dominion voting machines audit in Antrim County, where thousands of votes for President Trump were flipped to Joe Biden.

Last week, Judge Elensheimer issued a protective order allowing Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to temporarily block the results of the audit.

During a hearing conducted by ZOOM and streamed live on YouTube, Elensheimer this morning  removed that order, clearing the way for the results to go public with some redactions.

Elensheimer issued an order on Dec. 6 granting a local man, William Baily, permission to have the county’s 22 Dominion tabulators examined. A team of seven forensic investigators from Allied Security Operations Group examined the voting machines for about eight hours on Dec. 6.  ASOG is a cyber security firm from Texas.

Baily’s attorney Matthew DePerno posted ASOG’s conclusions online.

We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election
results.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/13/will-americas-politically-disenfranchised-unite/

By now most America First conservatives have recognized the common agenda of libertarians and progressives. These two groups have significant differences, of course. For example, progressives are pro-union while libertarians prefer employee choice. But on most of the biggest issues, their agendas now align.

The alliance is a mismatch, however, for two reasons. First, because progressives have far more money and institutional power, and second, because progressives are serious, whereas libertarians tend to favor symbolic gestures.

The result of this is a one-sided alliance where the only time libertarians see elements of their policy agenda move from theory to reality is when it also serves the interests of progressives. For example, libertarians:

Support “free movement of peoples” but can’t prevent expensive welfare programs that attract economic migrants.
Support “free trade” but are indifferent to the impact that cheap foreign labor and foreign subsidies have on eliminating manufacturing jobs for Americans.
Support the right to be a homeless drug addict, but can’t prevent government hand-outs that attract more homeless drug addicts, or taxpayer-subsidized developments to give them free housing.
Support “upzoning” residential neighborhoods but don’t prevent developer subsidies or greenbelts that strangle the growth of cities.
Oppose government-funded infrastructure, which stops new freeway construction or projects to increase the water supply, but can’t prevent subsidized rail transit projects or water rationing.
Support the right of big tech platforms to censor free speech, with no apparent recognition that these companies have built monopolies and are manipulating public opinion.

The common thread in all these examples is that libertarians are unable to recognize that when governments only adopt half of a principle they support, it only makes matters worse. The other half of the principle of open borders is no welfare state. The other half of the principle of free trade is fair trade. The other half of the principle of personal freedom is personal responsibility. The principle of reducing zoning restrictions inside cities also requires us to reduce them outside of cities. And so on. Libertarians support the progressives where their principles supposedly align, but progressives take part one and ignore part two.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/13/john-eastman-the-man-who-deserved-to-win/

After completing the article below on Friday, I heard the news that the Supreme Court denied Texas’s lawsuit against four states alleging a violation of Texas voters’ constitutional rights in the November election. Against the denial of standing, Justice Samuel Alio, together with Justice Clarence Thomas, argued the court had no discretion to refuse such an original jurisdiction case between two or more states, but did not comment on the case’s merits. 

Chapman University law professor John C. Eastman on Wednesday moved to intervene on behalf of President Trump in the Texas suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Immediately, Eastman was assailed as the man who raised the “racist birther” charge against Kamala Harris. 

Having known Eastman for decades, I can attest that he is among America’s great intellectual and moral anti-racist scholars and attorneys. I have raised different issues about Harris than Eastman, but his questions about her eligibility had nothing to do with racism but instead raised fundamental questions about Article II’s eligibility requirements. 

As an attorney and law professor, and in government service at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Eastman has presented principled conservative arguments which are based on the Declaration of Independence and its interpretation by Abraham Lincoln. 

In addition to his University of Chicago law degree, a clerkship with Clarence Thomas, and a doctorate in politics and government from Claremont Graduate University, he has had electoral forays, last contending in 2010 for the Republican nomination for attorney general in California. He came in second in that race, and Kamala Harris won her primary and narrowly became the attorney general in the November election.

As director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Claremont Institute, Eastman exhibited tireless energy speaking and writing, serving on boards of conservative groups and filing amicus briefs, often with former Reagan Administration Attorney General Edwin Meese.

An Eastman brief goes well beyond the ordinary competence of an amicus brief, and that is true of this brief filed on behalf of the president as well. His argument is short and, if followed, would be revolutionary, since his arguments question precedents. But this is an unprecedented situation. 

Eastman summarizes the controversies involved in the four states in question, which have received much publicity—statistical anomalies in voting patterns, irregularities or even illegalities in distributing mail-in ballot applications and in securing and counting ballots, and numerous other instances of fraud and violations of election law. 

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/13/courts-to-voters-democrat-election-fraud-is-too-big-to-fail/

The courts have spoken, one after another. Some 74 million Americans have been denied our day in court.  The Democrats’ crime of stealing a presidential election is too big to fail.

Our play-it-safe judges don’t want to venture into these enormous seas, full of sharks, without precedent. They want to say in the safe spaces of the familiar. Stealing an election for city council is familiar enough to be overturned by law. Stealing a presidential election by wholesale fraud is above the law.

One might think that somehow our laws are written too narrowly to catch the whale of Democrat fraud in the election, but for one thing: the declarations from the bench that it is unthinkable to “upend an election.” Our judges tell us that ruling fraudulent ballots invalid would “disenfranchise” millions of voters. These are political statements. They are pusillanimous statements. They are not legal statements.

Upending an election has no precedent, we are told. But stealing a presidential election on this scale has no precedent, either.  The courts are saying that if election crimes are so consequential, they require a politically consequential act to be redressed, then no redress is allowed. 

That doesn’t even make sense. 

We are told there is no redress because the problem is political.

Yes, stealing an election is political. It is also illegal. It is also unconstitutional. 

The judges’ angry rebukes of the Republican plaintiffs are bogus by the very terms they use. If our judges are not willing to “disenfranchise” fraudulent and illegal votes, then they are disenfranchising the entire country. 

We are not getting the candidate who won the election. But the Supreme Court tells us our state attorneys have no standing to protect our votes. 

The evidence will not be heard in court. We cannot see the evidence formally submitted, discovery allowed, or 500 sworn testimonies of wrongdoing examined. Because none of us have the legal right to protest this heinous crime. Because we should have gone to court before the crime was committed, not after. Now is too late.

This is a failure of our justice system on a massive scale.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/sidney-powell-trump-could-trigger-2018-executive-order-on-foreign-interference_3616680.html?utm_source=morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2020-12-14

BY JACK PHILLIPS AND JAN JEKIELEK

Lawyer Sidney Powell asserted that due to alleged foreign interference in the Nov. 3 election, “it’s more than sufficient to trigger” President Donald Trump’s executive order on foreign interference issued in 2018.

In September 2018, Trump signed an executive order that says “not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election.”

Powell told The Epoch Times she believes that due to that executive order, it can give Trump “all kinds of power … to do everything from seize assets to freeze things, demand the impoundment of the machines,” referring to voting machines.

“Under the emergency powers, he could even appoint a special prosecutor to look into this, which is exactly what needs to happen,” Powell said. “Every machine, every voting machine in the country should be impounded right now. There’s frankly more than enough criminal probable cause to justify that, for anybody who’s willing to address the law and the facts purely on the basis of truth and not politics, or corporate greed, or global wealth.”

For the past month, some, including Arizona’s Maricopa County GOP Chairwoman Linda Brickman, as well as Powell, have alleged that Dominion Voting Systems’ machines allowed for votes to be switched from Trump to Democrat candidate Joe Biden. Dominion has pushed back, saying that it’s not possible to change votes, while asserting it has no ties to foreign governments and doesn’t allow its employees to engage in vote-tabulation efforts.

Powell noted that Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has only a few days left until he is to prepare his report to the president, according to the September 2018 executive order. It’s not clear when—or if—Ratcliffe will issue the report, as no public confirmation has been given so far. Little mention has been made of the executive order since it was issued more than two years ago.

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

Donald N. Finley is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel.

Much has already been written about the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Texas suit.  The sharpest legal minds in the country can’t agree on whether Texas has ‘standing,’ which isn’t much of a surprise since disagreement seems to be what we now do best.  I say it’s a very good thing because it shows where everyone stands, and rather than wondering who’s on your side and who’s opposed, disagreement shines light on everyone, so you know what you’re up against.

Perhaps we laypeople don’t understand the legal jargon about ‘standing,’ or why Texas and eighteen other states and the President of the United States aren’t allowed to show their collective injury inflicted by the four cheating states.  Perhaps the Supreme Court Justices didn’t understand the interest Texas had in other states’ election conduct was not its own; it was all of our interests.  Perhaps the legal precedents just didn’t fit right, and this case would have taken some courage, creativity, and consequences.  Perhaps it was just too much hard work for an upcoming holiday season. 

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m not blind, either.  “Judicially cognizable interest”?  That means about as much to me as talk about the internet would have meant to Thomas Jefferson.  Why does a ‘first ever’ event have to be judicially cognizable? 

Throughout our history, and perhaps all of world history, there has never before been as massive a fraud perpetrated on a free people as this.  Despite what Fox News says, these are not unfounded accusations.  In fact, that fraudulent acts changed the outcome of the election is indisputable.  Oh, it’s disputed, but it’s still indisputable in any factual or logically cognizable way.  If that seems cognitively dissonant, welcome to our world, where the MSM and the Democrat party say there’s no evidence of election fraud, and the Trump campaign’s allegations are baseless and unfounded.

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

In the video below, Kevin Freeman interviews technology expert Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, who explains how, with access to the physical ballots and the digital ballots in their native, unencrypted format, his team can process millions of ballots per day and determine conclusively which ballots are illegitimate. 

Pulitzer points out that by law, we the people own both the paper ballots and the scanned copies of ballots for 22 months after the election. He maintains that the Trump legal teams have been requesting the wrong evidence, that we only need access to audit the ballots on very simple visual terms.

For example, every mailed-out ballot was folded by machines and blown into envelopes. Pulitzer describes how machines can detect the forensic evidence left by a crease due to what he calls a kinematic fold, so that fake ballots that were fed into counting machines from never folded sheets can be flagged.

Legitimate ballots can be checked for upper-level encoding — that is, the standards by which the election council determines how the ballot is to be printed. As part of these standards, all ballots contain hidden codes not visible to the naked eye which identify the printer from which they were printed.

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

Rather than writing myriad posts about updated election fraud information, this post provides an overview. With the Supreme Court becoming an increasingly slender reed on which to rely, the information below in the new front in the battle against election fraud.

President Trump went on the offensive against state legislatures contemplating certifying votes despite significant evidence of fraud:

Negative votes. This video explains election anomalies that could occur only if there was large-scale data manipulation:

There’s a simple way to prove mail-in ballot fraud. Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, who invented the platform for QR readers, contends that he can determine in a day whether millions of mail-in ballots are fraudulent. Here’s the video, followed by my effort to simplify what he said:

Pulitzer says his system will scan mandatorily saved ballot images and actual ballots to find clues that the ballots were not mailed out to voters or filled in and returned by voters. Ballots that have been mailed have creases from being placed in envelopes. Ballots that ran off of printers and copy machines, rather than have humans enter their voting preferences, will lack the imprints of the human hand filling in the bubbles. 

There’s already evidence strongly suggesting that, in Georgia, significant numbers of ballots used for the recount were so pristine they never passed through the Post Office or through voters’ hands: