Posted originally on The Conservative tree house on December 13, 2020 by sundance

The Rebel Alliance is an international rag-tag team of liberty-minded patriots who are fighting the infiltration of weaponized corporate and political power against the core tenets of human freedom….

Today, a very consequential leak of almost two million Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members was released. Each of the people on the list are embedded within a network of multinational corporations and institutions around the globe. The CCP members are in senior ranks at all of the major multinational organizations with access to intellectual property, information technology and security. The multinationals are intentionally allowing CCP infiltration; none of this is happening by mistake.

The massive data-file [Download Here w/ Caution] was offered to all major international journalists and media organizations. All of the major U.S. media outlets did not want the data. As a consequence, media outlets within Australia and the U.K. are leading the release.

NOTE: At the same time U.S. media were refusing the leaked information they were simultaneously criticizing a U.S. executive order blocking CCP members from visas’ longer than one month in duration, by claiming no-one had any way to know who was a CCP member. In essence, the U.S. corporate media did not want to know.

U.S. politicians, U.S. journalists and U.S. corporate media outlets -together with Big Tech- are facilitating the agenda of the Red Dragon through their willful blindness to the CCP infiltration. The motive for U.S. media disinterest is based on financial entanglements with the CCP and their own participation in support of the ideology of globalism – which the CCP is exploiting in order to advance their totalitarian interests.

SKY NEWS – A major leak containing a register with the details of nearly two million CCP members has occurred – exposing members who are now working all over the world, while also lifting the lid on how the party operates under Xi Jinping, says Sharri Markson.

Ms Markson said the leak is a register with the details of Communist Party members, including their names, party position, birthday, national ID number and ethnicity.

“It is believed to be the first leak of its kind in the world,” the Sky News host said. “What’s amazing about this database is not just that it exposes people who are members of the communist party, and who are now living and working all over the world, from Australia to the US to the UK,” Ms Markson said. “But it’s amazing because it lifts the lid on how the party operates under President and Chairman Xi Jinping”.

Ms Markson said the leak demonstrates party branches are embedded in some of the world’s biggest companies and even inside government agencies. “Communist party branches have been set up inside western companies, allowing the infiltration of those companies by CCP members – who, if called on, are answerable directly to the communist party, to the Chairman, the president himself,” she said.

“Along with the personal identifying details of 1.95 million communist party members, mostly from Shanghai, there are also the details of 79,000 communist party branches, many of them inside companies”.  (read more)  VIDEO BELOW:

.

UK Daily Mail – Loyal members of the Chinese Communist Party are working in British consulates, universities and for some of the UK’s leading companies, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

An extraordinary leaked database of 1.95 million registered party members reveals how Beijing’s malign influence now stretches into almost every corner of British life, including defence firms, banks and pharmaceutical giants.

Most alarmingly, some of its members – who swear a solemn oath to ‘guard Party secrets, be loyal to the Party, work hard, fight for communism throughout my life…and never betray the Party’ – are understood to have secured jobs in British consulates.

[…] The database was originally leaked on Telegram, the encrypted instant messaging app, and passed in September by a Chinese dissident to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which comprises more than 150 legislators around the world who are concerned by the influence and activities of the Chinese government. Detailed analysis by MoS of the material reveals that pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and AstraZeneca – both involved in the development of coronavirus vaccines – employed a total 123 party loyalists

[…] The database was originally leaked on Telegram, the encrypted instant messaging app, and passed in September by a Chinese dissident to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), which comprises more than 150 legislators around the world who are concerned by the influence and activities of the Chinese government.

Dating from 2016, it includes the names of party members in Shanghai, the largest city in China and its financial hub.

The list is divided into more than 79,000 branches, many of them affiliated to individual companies or organisations.

In total, the Chinese Communist Party has more than 92 million members, but competition to join is fierce with fewer than one in ten applicants successful.

After authenticating the material, with the help of data security analysts Internet 2.0, IPAC passed the database to four media organisations around the world, including The Mail on Sunday. (read more)

Ultimately the global battle between the Red Dragon (CCP, Beijing) and President Trump is at the root of the concerted effort to remove/defeat him from office.  CTH has discussed this confrontation at length since the first shots were fired.

U.S. President Trump, representing economic nationalism, stood against China and was winning in the economic war despite the interference from Wall Street and U.S. media.

Historic Chinese geopolitical policy, vis-a-vis their totalitarian control over political sentiment (action) and diplomacy through silence, is evident in the strategic use of the space between carefully chosen words, not just the words themselves.

Each time China takes aggressive action (red dragon) China projects a panda face through silence and non-response to opinion of that action;…. and the action continues. The red dragon has a tendency to say one necessary thing publicly, while manipulating another necessary thing privately.  The Art of War.

President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the red dragon hides behind the panda mask.

It is specifically because he understands that Panda is a mask that President Trump messages warmth toward the Chinese people, and pours vociferous praise upon Xi Jinping, while simultaneously confronting the geopolitical doctrine of the Xi regime.

In essence President Donald Trump is mirroring the behavior of China while confronting their economic duplicity.

China has no cultural or political space between peace and war; they are a historic nation based on two points of polarity.  They see peace and war as coexisting with each other.

China accepts and believes opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.  Flowing between these polar states is a natural dynamic to be used -with serious contemplation- in advancing objectives as needed.

Peace or war. Win or lose. Yin and Yang. Culturally there is no middle position in dealings with China; they are not constitutionally capable of understanding or valuing the western philosophy of mutual benefit where concession of terms gains a larger outcome.

If it does not benefit China, it is not done. The outlook is simply, a polarity of peace or war.  In politics or economics the same perspective is true.  It is a zero-sum outlook.

Therefore, when you see China publicly use strong language – it indicates a level of internal disposition beyond the defined western angst.  Big Panda becomes Red Dragon; there is no mid-status or evolutionary phase.

President Trump would not back down from his position; the U.S. held all of the leverage and the issue must be addressed.  President Trump was waiting three decades for his moment to push-back against Beijing.  Our president and his team were prepared for that war and were winning each strategic battle…. THAT is why the CCP needed him removed.

Posted on December 13, 2020 by sundance

A video has been produced to ask a few very basic questions.  As the tabulations of vote counting is automatically updated to central databases for distribution to media, how do vote counts turn negative?  Errors can be made, but why are all the ‘errors’ going in only one direction.  Vote tabulations should be additive, why are vote totals decreasing?

Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on December 12, 2020 by Sundance

Together with his family Lt. General Michael Flynn delivers remarks during the Jericho March in Washington DC today.

Share

Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on December 12, 2020 by Sundance

Many people recognize there was an underlying organizational network operating within the key regions in the 2020 election, but few people have outlined the specific network and how it operates.  In this video Phil Kline, former Attorney General of Kansas and current director of the Amistad Project, testifies to Wisconsin State Legislature about the corrupt and unequal influence of Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg in the 2020 election.

Zuckerberg contributed $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), a left leaning organization that has been providing these funds to towns, cities, and counties for election administration, via contributions to their general funds.   WATCH:

Posted originally on The Conservative tree house on December 12, 2020 by Sundance

A report within the Wall Street Journal does not necessarily come as a surprise; however, it also does little to provide solace for the lack of action by Attorney General Bill “Bondo” Barr.   According to the article AG Barr has known about at least two investigations related to the Biden family since early spring 2020, and he worked to keep them quiet.

WASHINGTON DC – Attorney General William Barr has known about a disparate set of investigations involving Hunter Biden’s business and financial dealings since at least this spring, a person familiar with the matter said, and worked to avoid their public disclosure during the heated election campaign.

[…] One investigation became public this week after federal investigators served a subpoena on Hunter Biden. The subpoena sought detailed financial information in connection with a criminal tax investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware, according to people familiar with the matter.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan had also been looking at Hunter Biden’s business and financial dealings, as part of a broader criminal investigation that two people familiar with the matter described as an international financial investigation that had been going on for at least a year.  (read more)

The institutional hypocrisy is enough to choke a hippo.  Every rumor and supposition about Donald Trump was pushed directly into the media bloodstream by all ‘resistance’ operative in the DOJ, FBI and aggregate intelligence apparatus.  Meanwhile, actual and demonstrable criminal conduct within the Biden family is carefully concealed to avoid any damage to the usurpation agenda.

Salt In Wound.

FUBAR !

Those who follow politics know the CTH motives for supporting Donald Trump have always been because all other candidates and politicians represent a systemic problem of deception within the Republic.  They are part of a machine which operates on scheme and graft.  SEE: “Why I Support Donald Trump” Part I, Part 2 and Part 3.

We stood open with our motive – opponents do not.   We have previously used the metaphor that our constitutional republic was akin to the most beautiful classic car ever created, a beauty in desperate need of restoration.

This metaphor allowed us to present the question: Do we begin restoration to remove the rust with a ground up painstaking process intended to regain the full value, but will be exceedingly costly; or, do we as a nation once again put bondo over the rot and give it an appearance only paint job to maintain the impression?

Supporting Donald Trump means admitting the rot and disrepair we know exists.  Supporting Donald Trump means not ignoring the insufferable issues evident by hiding problems, the rust, represented by Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al under layers of shiny paint (See: McCain, Romney, Jeb).

Trump proposed we tear it down and begin an arduous but worthy process of rebuilding.  Given that proposition, it would be silly to think we should take Lady Liberty to the restoration “finisher”.

We first need to take her to the world class team who will take her down to the frame, cut out the rust, and rebuild the foundation.  This is the essential element in a proper restoration….. Anything else is just bondo applied to a corrupt system; which is exactly what AG Bill Barr appears to have done.

Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on December 12, 2020 by Sundance

In a disappointing majority decision announced shortly before 6:30pm Friday evening, a majority of Supreme Court justices refused to take up a Texas lawsuit challenging four states in the 2020 election.

The court, with two dissenting options by Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, stated that Texas lacked a legal right to sue and did not have a legal interest in how other states carried out their elections.

The court rejected the Texas’ lawsuit without considering the specific merits of the state’s case.

Texas had asked the court to delay the official vote of the Electoral College, scheduled for Monday, Dec. 14, or prevent the four states from casting votes in the Electoral College for Biden. Justice Alito filed a short statement regarding the court’s disposition of the case and was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The position of the Supreme Court raises an important question that now sits unresolved. If an individual citizen is determined not to have standing to challenge an election result; and if a group of citizens represented by their interest in a state, any state, is also denied standing to challenge an election result; then who can constitutionally challenge an election, any election, that is mired in controversy and demonstrable evidence of fraud?

From the Alliance:

• An individual voter does not have standing to sue for election misconduct. (He/she is only one person and everyone cannot sue all the time for all elections.)
• An official who may be adversely affected, cannot sue before an election in anticipation of bad conduct because it is speculative (not ripe)
• An official who was adversely affected, cannot sue after an election claiming bad conduct because it is too late (latches)
• A state does not have standing to sue on behalf of its citizens to remedy other states’ bad election conduct (no standing)

The result appears to be that no lawsuit involving the recent election cycle has been heard on the merits. Insofar as I am aware, the substance of misconduct claims have not been heard in court. (In fairness, there has been no decision on whether a state can sue itself for election misconduct.)

The U.S.S.C has created a constitutional right to abortion from emanations and penumbras. It has told us there is latitude to provide jobs and college admissions based on race or sex. The high court has created a constitutional right to burn the flag.

The Supreme Court, and other courts, have determined limits on constitutional rights to: free speech, bearing arms, freedom of assembly, religious worship, who can use which bathroom, whether the state can hang a murderer; whether men can compete in women’s sports; whether you can operate a restaurant, how hot your coffee can be, etc. ad nauseum.

However, when it comes to the citizen’s right to make sure his or her vote counts and is not nullified by corrupt and dishonest practices, the courts have decided that it is imperative they restrain themselves from taking a position on the merits.

They have thoughtfully informed us of constraints on them that no-one knew existed.  The Friday ruling cites only a conclusion, but no reasoning.

If a state sues, is it not representing its citizens? Isn’t that, at the root, the only function of a state government? Are the citizens’ rights to an honest vote not affected if another state runs a bogus election and the first state’s votes become nullified?

Does a state not have standing to sue because the court anticipates it will not succeed on the merits? Why do courts ever bother to write legal opinions when they can save time and tell us the outcome they have in mind right away?

My untutored mind is having difficulty figuring out just who, and under what circumstances, has a legal right to a fair election.

It seems the current answer is: no-one.

Share

Re-Posted from GrrrGraphics.com DEC 10, 2020 AT 9:54 AM

‘Twas the night before Christmas, next to a foreclosed house,

A family was camping, their dinner, a mouse.

They thought politicians should be hung high with care,

While they stayed socially distanced from others who were there.

Around the campfire, each wore a mask,

Ending the brainwashing would be no easy task.

The children were in sleeping bags, of Santa they dreamed,

Instead jolly Bill Gates was coming, as the cold moonlight beamed.

He arrived in a sleigh packed with needles of harm,

The shots were all mandatory; a vaccination for each arm.

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,

Bill hoped they’d all die, because he is such a jerk.

Then he sprang to his sleigh with a grin on his face,

Bill Gates would get even with the whole human race.

“On Pfizer, On Monsanto, On Fauci!” he shouted,

Bill was doing good work—it was not allowed to be doubted.

Away he flew, leaving the homeless in dread,

They thought Bill might be right after all–they’d be better off dead.

So while they should fight back with all of their might,

They instead faded gently into that goodnight.

—Ben Garrison

Additional by Tina…

Then up on the rooftop, there arose such a clatter,

Helicopters were landing, loaded with Patriot’s who mattered.

Rudy, Sidney, Lin Wood and more,

All standing up for the Constitution with lawsuits galore.

Digital soldiers marched straight into line,

lead by General Flynn on a mission divine.

To expose the corruption of a Deep State Cabal,

With God on our side, Patriots will not fall!

The Plandemic will end with the world awaken,

Our freedom and liberty will NOT be taken!

So Stand United Patriots across this land,

Hold the line and each other, hand in hand.

The Christmas Star will appear in this historical year,

With trust in God , we know we have nothing to fear.

So rejoice with your families and pray every day,

For our Republic, our President and our American Way.

As we heard our President,  as he appeared  in the night,

He shouted out, “We will not bend, We will not fall and we will win this fight”

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

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.