2020 Election Updates Corruption Rogue Judges

Update – Lawsuit Statuses And Trump’s Election Options At This Point

Share with:

In a previous article, we outlined where Trump’s election challenge currently stood. At the time of this writing, it would appear that there are a number of strategies being parallel pathed in an attempt to salvage his election prospects. 

Let me start by saying that it is almost impossible to overturn an election. You have to prove fraud to a system that is usually unwilling to hear it, regardless of the strength of your argument. In the case of the 2020 election it is actually 6 state systems and all of them are entrenched in their decision to resist any objective evaluation of their processes.  

So far, the election challenge has gotten no traction whatsoever in state government or state court. Activist judges have been fairly consistent in dismissing cases or hobbling them to the point where they are un-winnable. Bizarrely, even the GOP led legislature in Michigan (who went so far as to physically block republican electors from entering their capital building) and Georgia seems hell-bent on thwarting any challenge to their elections, no matter how much evidence has been accumulated. 

Attorneys  Lin Wood and Sydney Powell have cases docketed at the Supreme Court. The court is under no obligation to hear them at this point and it seems like there is a material reluctance to advance them prior to the inauguration. Having said that, only a very small percentage of cases that are docketed are actually heard, and a number of cases with more heft behind them (Texas v Pennsylvania) have been dismissed without evaluating their merits. Given this, it would not appear that these will achieve much in the way of helping Trump’s cause. 

Additionally, the Trump legal team has filed more focused versions of the Texas suit in the several states he has grievances with. As of this moment, none of them appear to have gained traction, with judges refusing to hear the cases for a myriad of reasons from “lack of standing”, to opining that a suit should have been filed before the election, to one judge going so far as to say he was ruling against Trump because he didn’t want to be in a position to dismiss the wishes of millions of votes. It is noteworthy that none of these cases have been dismissed for merit, and that none of the evidence has even been allowed to be demonstrated in a courtroom. At this point, the court system seems to have decided they don’t want to hear anything about this and walked away from the burden of having an opinion on election fraud.

The only other real avenue for Trump is legislative. There is a coalition of Republican congressmen and senators who have stated it is their intention to dispute the election. That would cause the electoral votes to be discussed in both houses independently. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell has asked republicans to refrain from that because he believes (correctly) that having to vote against Trump will present terrible optics for the party. The rules governing this process are contained inside the “Electoral Count Act” of 1887. It is a nauseatingly byzantine piece of legislation that has a dubious pedigree, in that its final solution involves the Vice President choosing the electors himself. No serious legal scholar believes that a republic would allow an official to select himself as a magistrate and it is widely believed that any attempt to do so would die swiftly in court. 

Having said that, the possible fulcrum which will sway the discussion will be contained in a report mandated in the 2018 executive order on election interference. If it can be proven that there was massive wide-scale fraud there might be enough sympathy among the joint houses to, at least, deadlock the discussions and possibly force it to the one state one vote rule where each state which at this point, is the most solvent way to conclude this experience. 

I should mention that there has been some desire discussed on social media, including several prominent Trump backers, to explore the notion of a martial law solution to this, but on 18, December and the Army secretary, Ryan McCarthy issued a joint statement with Chief of Staff GENERAL, James McConville, and supported by President Trump, saying there “ is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election”. 

At this point, though a vote in Congress seems the most likely outcome, there are so many moving pieces we do not really know what tomorrow will bring us, and will be publishing updates on our website as developments unfold.