Latest Horse Out of the Barn Wearing ‘President-Elect Crown?

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By Judi McLeod —— Bio and Archives—December 10, 2020

Since “in the run-up to Election Day 2020, Trump, and also Giuliani, were trying to find dirt on Hunter Biden’s international business dealings that would tank the campaign of Joe Biden, Biden has since won the presidential race, but Trump still refuses to concede,” must be true.

It must be true because Des Moines, Iowa based Senior U.S. Political Reporter Nikki Schwab for the Daily Mail, since Jan. 31, 2020 says so!

The Daily Mail story purports that “in the run-up to Election Day 2020”, Trump, and Giuliani, were no trying to win a presidency doomed to fail via Democrat voting fraud and open theft, they were spending the lion’s share of their time trying to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden’s international business dealings to tank Joe Biden’s non-campaign.

Who knew that “news” of the Hunter Biden corruption would be revealed long after the horse was out of the barn?

The Trump rallies attended by hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters, and live streamed to millions by Right Side Broadcasting and other networks were only the imaginations of deplorables.

Trump and Giuliani’s dirt-digging didn’t work because not only was all vote counting ground to a complete halt about 10 p.m. after folk went to bed on Election Night—but Lo and Behold, the news media crowned Biden ‘President-Elect’ within days.

Associating its origin with American showman P.T. Barnum “while early examples of its use are found among gamblers and confidence tricksters” (Wikipedia), “there’s a sucker born every minute”.

Most of them among the gullible who believe the Fake News of the current day media!

It’s Post Election 2020, and the media’s now reporting that the son of Schwab’s President-Elect is under investigation for his
questionable Burisma holdings.

Who knew that “news” of the Hunter Biden corruption would be revealed long after the horse was out of the barn?

The media, that’s who!

According to the Daily Mail, The Wilmington computer repair shop owner who handed a copy of Hunter Biden’s hard drive over to Rudy Giuliani has closed his shop and skipped town. 

But it was really The Delaware News Journal—not the Daily Mail—that first reported that John Paul Mac Isaac had left Wilmington, Delaware, according to a neighbor and a sign on his Trolley Square neighborhood store said it was closed. 

“Mac Isaac’s lawyer, Brian Della Rocca, confirmed that the shop was gone – due to his client receiving death threats – but wouldn’t tell the newspaper if the neighbor’s account of him leaving Wilmington was true.” (Daily Mail, Nov. 24, 2020) 

“Mac Isaac briefly became a central character in the presidential race when The New York Post reported on contents that allegedly came from Hunter Biden’s laptop that the store owner had handed over to the FBI – and also to a lawyer representing Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer. 

“Emails that were purportedly on the laptop suggest that then Democratic nominee Joe Biden had met with an executive from Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian company that placed Hunter Biden on its board.  
 
“Della Rocca also told The Delaware News Journal that his office is investigating whether the computer files that Giuliani said were from the laptop were actually from the laptop.
 
“Della Rocca said he did believe what Mac Isaac gave to authorities was authentic, though the News Journal points out that he couldn’t describe the process in how he would verify the contents of the hard drive.  

‘I have no concern that the information on the laptop is legitimate information,’ he told the paper. ‘Now what was released [by Giuliani]? I don’t know. I don’t have that level of information yet.’  

Why is it that the Intel Community always seems to have blown off the pop stand before prime witnesses leave town?

“After the October 14 New York Post story, given to the paper by Giuliani, Democrats, including House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, speculated the release was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. 

“Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, a top Trump defender, said that wasn’t the case. 

‘It’s funny that some of the people who complain the most about intelligence being politicized are the ones politicizing the intelligence,’ Ratcliffe said on Fox News Channel. ‘Unfortunately, it is Adam Schiff who said the intelligence community believes the Hunter Biden laptop and emails on it are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.’ 

‘Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress,’ Ratcliffe added. 
 
“Days later, however, more than 50 former intelligence officials signed on to a letter saying the Hunter Biden laptop story ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,’ according to Politico, which obtained the letter. 

If you can believe him, Mark Zuckerberg says the FBI sent Facebook a warning over the NY Post story.

Meanwhile, Mac Isaac seems to have taken the same route as Dirty Dossier MI6 spy/activist Christopher Steele who went on the lam in —-but at least didn’t try to fob off his beloved pet cats on any of his next door neighbors.

Why is it that the Intel Community always seems to have blown off the pop stand before prime witnesses leave town?

Maybe that’s an upcoming story for Nikki Schwab over at the Daily Mail.

Story brought to you by ‘President-Elect’ Canada Free Press.

Disunion. Disorder. Destruction. Designed and initiated by a Swamp with a global reach. It is naïve not to expect the SCOTUS to swim in the putrid waters of the Swamp

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By Lee Cary —— Bio and Archives—December 10, 2020

In a split decision, the Supreme Court of the United States will not act to stop the now obvious corruption of the 2020 Presidential election.

Their explanation for inaction will be to claim that their jurisdiction does not include intervention in a national election conducted at the state level.

Individual states, they will rule, are responsible for managing their own voting processes, without federal intervention—even when there appears to have been gross irregularities.

In a split decision, the Supreme Court of the United States will not act to stop the now obvious corruption of the 2020 Presidential election.

Their explanation for inaction will be to claim that their jurisdiction does not include intervention in a national election conducted at the state level.

Individual states, they will rule, are responsible for managing their own voting processes, without federal intervention—even when there appears to have been gross irregularities.

It is naïve not to expect the SCOTUS to swim in the putrid waters of the Swamp

The 19th Century war between the states brought a schism that continues to be revisited and exploited by those intent on bringing more division to the nation, in an on-going campaign driven by the purveyors of internal trauma who come from both inside and outside our borders.

Today, those internal prevaricators of division rally under the flag of one of the two major political parties.

Democrats have opted out of the American experiment and become enemies of the Republic in their relentless pursuit of power and control.  According to their calculus, their ends justify their means.

And so they have become totalitarians, facilitated by those Republicans complicit with their agenda, by both voiced support and sustained silence.

With the SCOTUS decision to uphold a corrupt election, tyrants and dissemblers will have successfully created an environment in which good people are forced to make terrible choices. And that is their intent.

Disunion. Disorder. Destruction.

Designed and initiated by a Swamp with a global reach. 

It is naïve not to expect the SCOTUS to swim in the putrid waters of the Swamp.

Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Dec 11, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

There is an interesting question that seems never to have been answered. Back in 2016, the Democrats alleged based upon mere allegations that Hillary made for political reasons, that there was Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election so she really won. Everyone has tried to reject that because it really taints both sides of the aisle. There was never any hard evidence of that whichever came to light despite the countless amount of money spent on the Mueller investigation. In a court of law, Hillary should have reimbursed the government for all of those costs.

Nonetheless, those allegations raised the question: What if such evidence did come to light? Would that have justified removing Trump from office AFTER his inauguration had he colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary? This sparked legal discussions behind the curtain would such evidence invalidate an election? Perhaps what goes around comes around. Those questions are still there with the extensive evidence of voter fraud surfacing this time around in 2020. Of course, Biden did not direct people to vote on behalf of dead people. That has been going on for decades. But what if Dominion Voting Systems, which only donated to Democrats, turns out that they did pay bribes in Georgia to get their system in the state, and was it manipulated?

There is NO LAW that would really invalidate even a fraudulent election. The laws and processes around national elections are highly inadequate and they clearly violate the Equal Protection of the Law and Due Process because every state makes its own rules which is inconsistent and can adversely impact the rights of other people in the other 49 states.

State and local laws have emerged over time in a very arbitrary way. The Constitution itself focuses more on ensuring stability than on administering elections. Consequently, there’s no absolute clear procedure for how to handle questions of fraud after the fact. If Biden is sworn in, there does not appear to be any way to actually remove him. The Impeachment Clause refers to his behavior and that would necessitate proving Biden himself directed the fraud or ordered someone to do it which is not likely.

The office of the President in the United States is different from parliamentary government systems for it combines the duties of a head of state with duties of a head of government in contrast where these are separated duties often divided between the president and a prime minister. In the UK, the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, is the head of state while the Prime Minister is the head of government where there reside the executive powers.

The Constitution gives the president the power to lead the executive branch — the responsibility to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed — and places that person in charge of the military (although Congress retains the power to declare war). Therefore, removing the monarch meant that the President would also be the Head of State. Hence, it is the President who would meet with the monarch.

Under the original Articles of Confederation, there was no president, which created confusion for there was no person in charge of enforcing the laws. Thus, it was George Washington who dealt with the Whiskey Rebellion. Therefore, the Impeachment Clause: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was worded in such a way that if Biden bribed people to get into office, that would be ground to remove him. Again, that is not likely.

There is a serious question of how can a president endorse the Marxist philosophy of progressive taxation while they are to represent the nation and not just a few states or population centers. Selecting such a person through a direct election was out of the question back then. It was difficult for many of the founding fathers to imagine a national election, or that attempting one would achieve the intended goals. This is to some extent being talked about behind the curtain that the President should be selected by the Congress and not the people.

The framers, however, gave the Electoral College broad discretion to resolve disputes as it saw fit. The text of the Constitution states that an election is legitimate ONLY when the Electoral College declares the winner. I find it so strange that Biden has the audacity to appear on a stage declaring he is the President-Elect and has some Office of the President-Elect when that is just not the case. There is no “president-elect” until the Electoral College so declares – not CNN, Washington Post, or the New York Times. This is creating the image that it was a rigged election and they are desperate to pretend they were elected selling that idea when legally there is no such office of the president-elect.

The Constitution does not have any process for a do-over. Interestingly, the judiciary does have the power to order new elections for offices but never in the case if a president. Such decrees have come in the face of a proven case of fraud or error or gerrymandering.  In 2019, North Carolina courts ordered the legislature to draw fairer election districts, holding out the potential for voters — not lawmakers — to decide which party would control the General Assembly.  A Senate election was once redone in New Hampshire because it was too close to determine even with multiple recounts. So, there is some precedent that in the face of fraud or elections to be too close to count, the Judiciary has stepped in.

When we look at a presidential election, whether a re-do would be constitutionally be allowed is a much more complicated matter. The language in Article II of the Constitution prevents holding a presidential election again, thus putting it beyond the power of the courts to order a re-do. On the other hand, there is legal precedent for a presidential re-vote if there were flaws in the process. One instance in which this question arose was the “butterfly ballot” from the 2000 election, which may have caused some voters to choose Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Al Gore in Palm Beach County, Florida.

While the question was not reached in the 2000 election in the Supreme Court Bush v Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000), it did raise the equal protection problem with different election procedures. The court held Per Curiam:Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies.There were indications that the Court recognized the need for nationwide electoral reform under Due Process and the Equal Protection Clause. How states do their own elections do not impact other states. However, election anyone federally impacts the rights of everyone. Looking at the lower courts, at least one federal court has suggested that the courts could order a new election. In 1976, an Eastern District Court in New York heard a case, Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of NY, 435 F. Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976), where it was alleged that voter fraud in several urban locations took place not unlike what we see right now. In that decision, the court maintained that federal courts had a role to play in ensuring free and fair presidential elections. It held:

“It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means.”

Interestingly, the court didn’t find sufficient evidence that voter fraud had altered the outcome, or even occurred at all. Still, experts disagree about whether courts can order presidential elections to be held again. If there is a violation of rules that would change the election outcome, then the courts would be compelled to act and federally this is why Texas is suing Pennsylvania. Now 17 other states are joining Texas v Pennsylvania. What Pennsylvania and Georgia for that matter do to try to prevent recounts impacts the Equal Protection of the Law and Due Process rights of everyone else in the entire country.

STATES VIOLATE EVERYONE’S CIVIL RIGHTS

Within the Legal Code Title 18, Section 241, it has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. It has long been held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. It has been applied to stuffing a ballot box with forged ballots, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915) as well as preventing the official count of ballots in primary elections, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), which may come in handy in this election. This means private suites can be filed claiming that interfering with the ballots is a civil rights violation to all in the country.

Destroying voter registration applications is also applicable (United States v. Haynes, Nos. 91-5979, 91-6076, 1992 WL 296782, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 1992)), as well as destroying ballots (United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070, 1073–75 (8th Cir. 1988)).

Anyone who exploits the infirmities of elderly or handicapped people by casting absentee ballots in their names is also a violation of civil rights, United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1972), just as anyone who illegally register voters and cast absentee ballots in their names, United States v. Weston, 417 F.2d 181, 182–85 (4th Cir. 1969).

Anyone who threatens injury, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote is also a serious actionable issue under this statute, Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th
Cir. 1955). This even extends to someone who impersonates qualified voters, Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879, 879 (5th Cir. 1952).

CONTESTED PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

There have been a number of presidential elections that have been contested. The 1800 election ended in an Electoral College tie. At the time, there were discussions that perhaps they should holding a new election. Then there was the notorious 1824 election that was decided through what some called by Andrew Jackson a “corrupt bargain” among elites. The previous few years had witnessed the Federalist Party collapsed which had dominated from the outset. This left the Democratic-Republican Party, which splintered as four separate candidates sought the presidency. Nobody won the popular vote nor the electoral vote. Thus, it became Congress’s decision which is the strategy this time. Jackson had won more electoral votes than any other single candidate and alleged that Henry Clay, who served as Speaker of the House of Representatives at the time, had convinced the House to elect Adams. The accusations became more believable when Adams appointed Clay as Secretary of State. There was no evidence of such a deal but the allegations created the image of the defender of the elite against the interests of the common man.

The election of 1876 was also contested with allegations of vote suppression in several Southern states. It was a political conflict after the Civil War. A Democratic candidate had emerged with the lead in the popular vote. However, 19 electoral votes from four states were in dispute. In that case, Congress was convened to settle the election. Rutherford B. Hayes was handed the presidency despite the fact that he had lost the popular vote.

Most people do not know by the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy’s razor-thin margin, was also hotly debated while the honesty of the votes in Texas and Illinois were in question but Richard Nixon’s decision not to challenge the results avoided the dispute.

Disputed elections have often seriously undermined a presidency, as it did with John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Donald Trump. The 2000 election left a bad taste in many people’s mouths. The hostility of the Democrats against Trump was just astonishing. T have Nancy Pelosi tear up the president’s state of the union speech on national television was an insult to the entire country. That is prescribed by the Constitution that the president must deliver such a speech. Today, politics resembles more of a war zone than governing the nation.

Historically, once the Electoral College votes and declares a winner, the case for questioning a presidential election or gauging which side really won becomes a lot more difficult. Of course, the Constitution does not prescribe any mechanism for undoing the results of an election other than impeachment. That process, however, is focused on individual wrongdoing or an incapacity, not electoral irregularities. In that sense, even if collusion revelations did lead to Biden’s impeachment and removal from office, the process would have to deal with the question of whether his election had been legitimate in the first place. The only other possibility is an impeachment over selling influence to Ukraine and China if that could be proven.

The Constitution never addressed any review process for reviewing elections. This is also because the people never voted for George Washington – the Electoral College did. Between 1820–1830, as states joined the union they create their own state constitutions outlining who is allowed to vote. Eligible voters are mostly white males who own property as it was in Roman and Greek times assuming they had something at stake. A small number of free black men were allowed to vote but no women either white or black.

The larger issue concerns the structures established by the Constitution clearly place the election process in the hands of the Electoral College which was more concerned about allowing the majority of states to decide the national party system. However, the very text of our Constitution has never been changed and it does not reflect the modern system of allowing the people to vote. The states have adopted their own rules which are inconsistent nationally. All but two states allocate all electors to the winner, but the electors were not bound to even follow that. The Electoral College remains a heated topic at times when the vote does not align with the popular vote. When it comes to attaining the position of president with allegations of fraud if the Supreme Court fails to decide the law claiming discretion under the Judiciary Act of 1925 which in itself is unconstitutional since the oath of office declared they are to uphold the constitution – not on a discretionary basis if they feel like it that day.