This video published in the last 24hrs takes about 18 minutes and will set up our commentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgDyeNJ4FBk
We agree with Ms Gau’s conclusion, we must have a vigorous pursuit of the truth and not give in.
As regards 1960, we are not dealing with the same Democrat Party. We are dealing with one run by people intent on a “Global Reset” that involves one world government and inevitable tyranny. In 1960 the year Democrats stole the election from Richard Nixon, the results were we believe seriously negative and wrong, but nothing like the precipice we are faced with now with a Harris presidency.
Some of the “get over it” types assume the Supreme Court will not “overturn” election “results”. SCOTUS does seem to be the direction of the Trump legal team, (with the court of public opinion as a back-up). My view is that elections in 2022, and 2024 are too iffy as palliatives when insecurity and dependency on government move so quickly. Look at the induced COVID “crisis” playbook and results. So far it is not encouraging.
“Move on, get them next time, focus on the Georgia US Senate race . . .” those are the gist of arguments to “get over it” as if without the Presidency or the House a potential one or two vote margin in the US Senate is salutary with the likes of Mitt Romney and Susan Collins and some others on the Republican roster (ironically it could be that a few Democrats in the House would be more likely to stand to protect key aspects of the Republic . . . but I have no real confidence).
The Harris presidency would move quickly to consolidate power and dependency.
The Trump legal team has taken the lid off a whirlwind. The Supreme Court will have to save us from a stolen election if the evidence of such is sufficient. They must not choose to wrongly deny evidence that is convincing in order to “save” the country from conflict. That is the proper concern of political leadership and the people.
If the Constitution demands and protects “one man one vote” within the system set up by the Founders then SCOTUS must deny an election that offends it or is so tainted so as cancel confidence in it. It would be a corrupt system on trial or one too weak by design or negligence to guarantee the integrity of the vote. It is a situation where the people are the ones with rights not certain politicians. That integrity is the balance of the justice scale that must be given the benefit of the doubt. The people can be “made whole” as a body politic, by eliminating fraudulent votes or by order of a new election if the system is so tainted.
If sufficient evidence is present of large scale corruption having been implemented, even if evidence is destroyed, that cannot be a win for corruption as the thieves are not the ones on trial by SCOTUS, to be given benefit of doubt, but the security and integrity of the system. Or, if the system has inherent weakness (one of which would be a feature of easily destroying evidence or ignoring fraud as a matter of course) then that is sufficient to deny the validity of the election in order ti insure integrity of the system and “one man one vote”.
If the system used is so insecure (it is in many states) and it is evidenced by testimony about the system, of negligence, of circumstantial or statistical or anomalous evidence sufficient to call into question the integrity of the election, the safe thing to do is to order the corrective of a new election at least in those states where the problem is evident (under rules sufficient to insure the integrity of the vote). It is the peoples’ election, nothing is owed the candidates.
The above commentary was not an effort to regurgitate thoughts of my betters elsewhere but I did run into the article below at American Thinker toward the end of writing this in order to provide an example of a federal election being recast not recounted. It refers to a recent congressional race where there was sufficient taint to call for a new election as mere recounts of fraudulent votes and tallies are hardly justice served.
Recount? A judicially ordered new election is far better
It’s not enough that riots, chaos, and economic mismanagement plague America’s one-party blue cities.
In cities such as Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Minneapolis, the usual machine-politics deliveries for Democrats appear to be in overdrive. In this election, stealing elections is an act they’ve taken national, with President Trump the target.
There’ve been reports of voter intimidation, illegal electioneering, and observer suppression in Philadelphia; illegal ballot-harvesting and vote-buying in Minneapolis; big midnight vote dumps of “found” ballots bearing votes for all a single party in Detroit, alongside boarded up windows by election officials to prevent observation of what goes on the the totalization rooms; and now backdated ballots. In Atlanta, Rev. Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece, has declared she has seen voter fraud firsthand in her city, too.
Just by coincidence, they’re all in states now under dispute in the general election, states where the president appeared to be ahead until the ballot-counting suddenly stopped and then the numbers suddenly reversed. He’s suing Michigan and Wisconsin and possibly some others.
But sorting out which ballots are legitimate and which are not in the wake of such widespread evidence of fraud is a tall order, and probably impossible on a state scale where officials have not acted in good faith.
North Carolina faced this situation in 2018, where a campaign operative working for a Republican congressional candidate, engaged in illegal ballot-harvesting, primarily of black votes, presumed to be votes for Democrats, and, instead of turning them in to the registrar of voters, threw them in the trash.
When it was brought before a judge, the judge declared it so tainted that he threw the entire election out and ordered a new election. According to this well written report describing what happened in the Raleigh News & Observer by Luke Decock:
The state board called it “a well-funded and highly organized criminal operation” to collect absentee ballots from voters and mail them to election officials. Witnesses testified some ballots were collected unmarked, and experts testified that an unusual amount of requested ballots were never submitted.
The ballot harvesting threw into question the 9th Congressional District election that Harris won by a scant 905 votes over Democrat Dan McCready. Harris was never certified as the winner as the fraud came to light. Another Republican, Dan Bishop, eventually claimed the seat almost a year later in a special election.
A consultant to Harris’ campaign hired Dowless after the operative helped secure 221 of 225 absentee votes cast for Harris’ primary opponent in 2016. Harris then won the 2018 primary thanks in part to a 437-17 absentee edge.
There is talk about recounts, but how do you re-count an election where the ballots have been opened from their envelopes? Where illegal aliens have quite possibly padded the voter rolls? Where ballots have been harvested and the chain of custody utterly broken? Where who knows what went on behind closed doors as suitcases and boxes on rollers mysteriously arrived at midnight?
Recounts are a fool’s errand. Throwing out a bad election and ordering a new one, with hard observation on all sides, full transparency, and judicial supervision, is frankly the far better solution, as it is the only way to restore confidence in the system.
And it’s not that far-fetched.
The North Carolina teams who challenged the election used the Guaranteee Clause requiring states not to be run as dictatorships (note that all dictatorships have filthy elections) as its rationale, and it could just as easily be done with these blue-run cities and states.
Trump is facing the battle of his political life with this evidence of electoral rigging and strange outcome from the expected one. Recounts may be a first step, but for utterly dirty elections, the best solution is a judicially ordered re-do. One hopes that by the time it hits the Supreme Court, the matter will get to that.
