RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2020/12/americas-forlorn-hope-of-a-quiet-life/

Almost the oddest feature of the US election result—which as I write is a Joe Biden victory with a very small question mark attached—is the complacency with which centrist opinion, the media, Wall Street, moderate Democrats and establishment Republicans have greeted it. One might have expected that the election of an undistinguished seventy-seven-year-old hack politician of the Left, whose vice-president is a leftist of a more radical temper, would have made the possessing classes at least a little apprehensive, especially in conditions of civil disorder, pandemic and economic anxiety.

Instead, when the media jumped the gun by certifying Biden’s election as president-elect while the votes of five states were still being counted, there were street carnivals of rejoicing in New York and other hubs of urban America but also quiet satisfaction in the suites of America too. Wall Streeters joined Republican consultants in congratulating America on achieving an almost perfect political compromise: a radical Democrat president restrained from doing anything by a Senate in safe Republican hands. And an almost mystically united coalition of the media, corporate America, Big Tech, journals of opinion and independent commentators welcomed the result, called for all sides but especially Republicans to set aside things said in anger, and prayed for the new president.

God must have been pleased, if only because he was hearing from some of those in the congregation for the first time ever.

But this “era of good feelings” proved to be very short as eras go. That wasn’t because President Trump refused to concede until the courts had pronounced on the disputed vote counts in key swing states. Trump was denounced on this score (essentially for not being a good sport), but he was perfectly entitled to defend his legal right to a fair election.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/12/doj-suspended-hunter-biden-investigation-during-daniel-greenfield/

We already knew Hunter Biden was under investigation.

Remember that laptop story the media buried? The laptop was taken by the FBI. The case number suggested money laundering.  But, according to Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller, the investigation may actually go back to 2018. 

According to a Hunter Biden statement released by the Biden-Harris campaign, he only learned about this for the first time yesterday. That seems wildly implausible.

But if you parse the statement, that’s not what he’s really saying.

“I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they are investigating my tax affairs.:

Read that like a lawyer and it actually says that Hunter Biden learned for the first time that the office told his lawyers yesterday that they were investigating his taxes.

Which is to say, he learned for the first time yesterday the message that was passed on yesterday. In short, it’s meaningless, but meant to sound like it’s coming as a surprise to him.

Former VP Joe Biden’s statement says that he’s proud of his son. Unclear which part he’s proud of more, the drugs, the foreign dealings, or having a baby with a stripper.

Or an official investigation.

There is an interesting tidbit from CNN though, two actually…

After pausing in the months before the election, federal authorities are now actively investigating the business dealings of Hunter Biden, a person with knowledge of the probe said…

That would mean the probe was shut down during the election.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jim-jordan-trump-shouldnt-concede-everyone-in

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called on President Donald Trump not to concede the Nov. 3 election.

In response to a statement on Newsmax about whether he should, Jordan said, “No, of course not, and you remember this is a president [who] gets things done.”

“This is a president who does what he told the American people he was going to do, accomplishes what he was elected to do and this is just one more example of him getting something done that’s valuable and important to the country,” Jordan said.

Going further, Jordan said that “instinctively, everyone knows there are problems with this election.”

Since Nov. 3, Trump said that the election was stolen from him and has mounted a legal campaign to overturn the results in several states. Meanwhile, his lawyers have lobbied the state legislatures and governors to either not certify the results of the election or for state lawmakers to reclaim their constitutional authority to call electors.

The Epoch Times has not called the election for either Trump or Democrat Joe Biden.

Jordan, the ranking Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, suggested that Trump performed too well in other places and among certain demographics to lose.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/09/in-facebook-rants-mi-dem-rep-cynthia-johnson-calls-on-soldiers-to-rise-up-and-make-trumpers-pay/

A Michigan Democrat State Representative seemed to threaten President Trump’s supporters on video Tuesday, by saying “we ain’t playing with you,” and calling on “soldiers” to “make them pay.”

In a three minute long Facebook live video, the far-left State Rep. Cynthia Johnson said “Trumpers” had better “be careful,” and “walk lightly.”

In a subsequent rant, Johnson suggested that was calling on “soldiers of Christ,” and soldiers for black and brown people” to “rise up” and make Trumpers pay.

Johnson, who made a name for herself by trying to intimidate election fraud whistleblowers during the hearings in Michigan earlier this month, took office on January 1, 2019.

Addressing her Facebook friends on Dec. 8, she said: “I wish I could be talking to y’all in a private room, because, uh, I just wish I could, but we’re public so …”

She told them, “you don’t have curse anybody out, you don’t have to call people names … hit their asses in the pocketbook.”

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/09/17-states-file-brief-at-the-supreme-court-in-support-of-texas-lawsuit-challenging-2020-election/

Seventeen U.S. states filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday supporting the Texas lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results.

“In the context of a Presidential election, state actions implicate a uniquely important national interest, because the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States,” the brief states. “For the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.”

The filing concludes:

The allegations in the Bill of Complaint raise important constitutional issues under the Electors Clause of Article II, § 1. They also raise serious concerns relating to election integrity and public confidence in elections. These are questions of great public importance that warrant this Court’s attention. The Court should grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Bill of Complaint.

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1336777382410194946?s=20

As American Greatness’ Julie Kelly reported on Tuesday, the Texas lawsuit “accuses four states currently ‘won’ by Joe Biden of using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to violate the Electors Clause and the 14th Amendment.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin for usurping the sole authority of state legislatures to create election law and charges that millions of absentee ballots were unlawfully processed by local election officials.

The state of Texas is asking the court to extend the December 14, 2020 deadline to certify each state’s electoral slate.

The suit also asks the court to declare that the four states—Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin—“administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment” and to block the Electoral College votes of those states.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/09/6-things-to-know-about-texass-supreme-court-petition-over-2020s-messed-up-election/

Texas argues that the case ‘presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,’ namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities.

On Monday, Texas filed a motion for leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin’s administration of the 2020 presidential election. The combined filings, which also include a request for an expedited review and a preliminary injunction, spanned more than 150 pages. Here’s what you need to know about this latest election case.

1. This Is Not Bush v. Gore

Texas’s lawsuit is a procedural creature differing greatly from the Bush v. Gore case about the 2000 election. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially.

The Constitution establishes several types of cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but other than cases involving disputes between two states, Congress has created “concurrent jurisdiction” with lower federal courts. This means those other types of disputes may be heard by federal district courts.

Not so in the case of a state suing a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such cases, meaning that such disputes can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Paradoxically, however, the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion. That is why Texas filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint—because it needs the court’s permission to file the complaint.

In its memorandum in support of its motion, Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The brief also argues that a ruling would help “preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections.”