“Collusion” destroyed what was left of respect for the Washington FBI, the CIA, and the liberal news media. When 50 former “intelligence” officers can attest, right before the election, that the Hunter Biden scandal emails are likely Russian disinformation designed to help Trump, then there is nothing much left of the reputation of our once best and brightest.”
Quote above from Victor Davis Hanson in today’s post at American Greatness
We’re aware of rumors out there about intense “conference” meeting(s?) within the SCOTUS about what to do about appeals from states regarding the legitimacy of presidential vote totals in other states. What we read, even if from questionable sites, alleging that Chief Justice Roberts was screaming ~”Are you going to be responsible for the rioting if we hear this case?” . . . ” “Don’t tell me about Bush v. Gore, we weren’t dealing with riots then” ~ is that fear mongering about “civil war” or something are probably the most plausible explanation for the SCOTUS majority latest mocking, bush league action…denial of a hearing of the Texas lawsuit.
The “judicial anxiety” is about the left, that they don’t fear the right is an interesting phenomenon. That there were no riots after Bush v Gore we believe was largely because people had the evidence before them, SCOTUS heard the case and did the right thing. As to the 2020 election heretofore there have not been unified hearings, or, when claims of fraud were attempted to be pleaded presentation was thwarted by obfuscatory procedural blocks including especially the “standing” dodge that has a partiality to it that is tender of claims by the left but rigid as hell when it comes to conservatives.
We would be inclined to believe Chief Justice Roberts’ cowardice, or kowtowing to anti-democratic/socialist forces of the Democratic Party, as part of the most likely explanations for his most crucial ‘decisions’.
Roberts’ is often portrayed as part of the “conservative” members of the Supreme Court … probably among the many ‘cons’ the MSM (Mainstream Media) has pulled on the more gullible segment of the American public. Amy Coney Barrett’s elevation to the Court was hysterically and falsely portrayed as giving the Court a decided right-wing tilt of 6-3 with only Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayer as the leftists on the Court. However, in our opinion, Roberts is an almost sure bet to side with the liberals on any key issue before the tribunal, thus 5-4…and we’re not real sure about Kavanaugh…or Gorsuch. The Court may very well be 5-4 liberal on issues of vital importance to the Constitution… or worse. V’PAC
Via The Epoch Times ( bold our emphasis)
President Donald Trump’s legal team is planning on filing retooled lawsuits, his lawyer said Saturday.
“We move immediately, seamlessly, to plan B, which is to bring lawsuits now in each one of the states. We had them ready. They’re just a version of the one that was brought in the Supreme Court. So last night, the president made the decision,” Rudy Giuliani said during an appearance on “War Room: Pandemic.”
Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan, alleging the elections there were run contrary to the Constitution. The nation’s top court rejected the suit late Friday.
Trump’s team is going to file suits or has already filed in the four states as well as Arizona and Nevada. The suits will incorporate allegations in the complaint filed by Texas.
“If the state doesn’t have standing, surely the president of the United States has standing. And certainly the electors in the states have standing. So they will be bringing those very cases right in those courts, starting today,” Giuliani said. “And let’s see what excuse they can try to use to avoid having a hearing on that.”
Courts have been using the matter of standing to dodge facing the facts, he alleged, adding, “Nobody wants to face the reality that this election was stolen.”
“This is outrageous what they’re doing. The American people should have the benefit of hearing these facts … The facts have been kept from them,” he continued.
“Not a single court decision has had a hearing yet. They haven’t heard from a single witness. They haven’t looked at a single tape. They haven’t listened to a single recording. There are thousands of them. They haven’t even bothered to look at the tape in Atlanta, Georgia, which is dispositive. It shows an ongoing voter theft of 30,000 votes, enough to change the election.”
Dozens of election-related lawsuits filed by Trump and others have been rejected in courts. Some were appealed. Other suits are still being decided.
Surveillance footage from State Farm Arena showed poll observers being led to believe that ballot counting was ending around 10:30 p.m. on election night. Once observers and media left, a handful of workers resumed counting, the footage showed.
Georgia officials have claimed nothing in the video was irregular, concluding observers “simply left on their own” while ignoring a verbal announcement that the counting was done for the night.
According to certified counts in Georgia and the other five battleground states where election results are contested, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden beat Trump. Trump won all but Nevada in 2016. Biden’s team didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The Barr rule:
“The more corrupt, the more criminal, the more dangerous to the nation, a candidate for president is, the greater the need to conceal knowledge of it from the electorate…since the likelihood that such knowledge would affect the outcome of the election!”
There is a caveat, however, to the “Barr Rule”, known as the “Barr Guidance”, to wit: “revealing to the electorate that a 4 year massive effort to discredit, undermine, and/or overturn through false accusation and criminal activity the duly elected administration of a president seeking reelection is prohibited if, by revealing it, could negatively affect the outcome of election of a radical leftist administration.”
Result for Swamp, Inc: goals met, (perps get away even if a few fall guys sacrificed) no significant downside to similar operations. “IT WORKS”
******************************************
Barr Hid Two Federal Probes Into Hunter Biden For Months (story below our commentary)
I think that Bill Barr, soon after his confirmation as Trump’s Attorney General was quite impressive in an interview with Mark Levin…he said all the reassuring things…here he was, the most courageous, honest AG in a long time. He looked especially good (honest, competent) by comparison with his immediate predecessors, Lynch and Holder (who had neither of those qualities). Also, he made very positive noises in his congressional hearings ( re; the “Hillary emails”, the Russia hoax…”the stories Obama people have told don’t “hang together..” We all pretty much overlooked the fact that his first appointment as AG was by GW Bush. And, of course he had the “impeccable” reputation around D.C, (that should have tipped us off).
Then, it was soon learned (but not much ‘publicized’) that Barr gave some $55,000 to JEB Bush’s primary campaign. (That’s the “low energy JEB Bush”)
I think we know the entire Bush clan is no fan of Trump. I, daresay, I believe it is starting to look like Barr took the job primarily to destroy Trump. (Crazy? Well, how about the fable going around Washington that Joe Biden has all his faculties?)
Early on, many of us suspected that Barr was kind of ‘going a bit too slow’ with his various investigations…the Hillary emails, the “Russia Hoax’, the abject corruption for which a mountain of evidence was provided for Durham to look into….the whole Durham drama, The DOJ IG report. There was, of course, Chris Wray ( as ‘Deep state” as they come) but I think we see now that Wray was a tiny part of the problem.
By all evidence, Durham is as phony as they come. The entire FBI is corrupt! I believe the whole Biden family story of corruption has been known to Barr, the FBI, the DC establishment, and much of the media from the start. (Bobulinski’s testimony and evidence, alone, would have been enough to quickly expose the Biden corruption. Yet, Barr and Wray made no effort.)
So now, we have Barr being hailed for concealing the Biden investigation from the voters, observing the DOJ ‘guidance’ to ‘avoid influencing an election’; like everything else in Washington, it sounds plausible and reasonable at first (to avoid disclosing seemingly serious allegations prior to an election, which may, after the election, turn out to be unproven “smears”.)…until it gets into the hands of somebody like Barr, Durham, Comey, Obama, Holder, Lynch, the Washington establishment… !
We believe we have just witnessed, however, the deliberate concealment by the Justice Department of massive, obvious, provable corruption by a presidential candidate and members of his family. We will soon learn of and see put in place, a perverse strategy which put a woefully incapable Joe Biden into the Oval Office so that, within weeks or a few months, Kamala can be president. Donald Trump, from the start, was doomed to fail in his bid for reelection and with it the possible destruction of the USA itself. (All “6 ways from Sunday” were employed and ‘worked’ superbly)
According to the Barr (and all of Washington’s) “defense”, the more corrupt, the more criminal, the more dangerous to the nation, a candidate for president is, the more knowledge of it must be kept from the electorate…since the likelihood that such knowledge would affect the outcome of the election! dlh
——-
Barr Hid Two Federal Probes Into Hunter Biden For Months
Attorney General William Barr knew about two contemporaneous federal investigations into Hunter Biden for months — and worked to keep them from the public ahead of the election, according to a new report.
The nation’s top law enforcement official avoided providing information about the probes to Republicans in Congress without explanation, a person familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal.
One of the investigations was made public this week, when the 50-year-old son of President-elect Joe Biden disclosed on Wednesday that he was being probed for possible tax fraud.
Hunter Biden is also implicated in a broader international financial investigation by federal prosecutors in Manhattan, two people familiar with the case told the Journal. That probe has been going on for at least a year. Hunter Biden, however, was never a specific target for criminal prosecution, according to the Journal.
Barr is said to have been aware of the federal scrutiny — which dates back to 2018 — into Hunter Biden since before the spring. But how and when he first learned of the probes isn’t clear.
Investigators worked to make sure news of the investigations didn’t become public before the presidential election, as per Justice Department guidelines that prohibit activity that could influence a political race.
President Trump and his Republican allies have repeatedly urged the AG to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bidens.
On Thursday night, Trump railed against the timing, tweeting, “Why didn’t the Fake News Media, the FBI and the DOJ report the Biden matter BEFORE the Election.”
BUSINESSES EXPECT SHORTAGE OF TRANSGENDERS (?)
The Wall Street Journal’s Business section led with a story Tuesday about companies are now under pressure after the Nasdaq announced it is now requiring listed companies to meet “board-diversity requirements”. The state of California passed such a mandate last fall. In effect, the story says that corporations and their executives are scrambling to recruit “underrepresented” groups to serve on their boards of directors. At Veritaspac, we believe the story needs little additional commentary.
“Underrepresented groups” include not only women and racial minorities but, as the story notes, gays, lesbians, transgenders, bi-sexuals, etc. (To us, it sounds like it may take awhile to fill those ‘quotas’, and in the meantime, the average formerly well-qualified, business savvy straight white fellow need not apply.) dlh
Parents… don’t save up for your child to get an MBA; Start them instead on gender-changing hormone therapy; that’s where the $ will be in the future ! ?
—————————————————————————————-
“The killing of George Floyd on May 25 sparked protests over police brutality and systemic racism. WSJ’s Darren Everson spoke with Black professionals to discuss their experiences and what changes they’d like to see.”
– “One of the biggest board recruiting rushes in U.S. corporate history is set to commence, and it is likely to be a delicate one.”
– “Nasdaq—which would require listed companies to have at least one woman and another director who is either a racial minority or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer—has found that three-quarters of its nearly 3,000 listed companies don’t meet its proposed criteria.”
– the story includes ‘sufficient’ denial that affirmative efforts to meet the diversity requirements would ever result in recruitment of persons solely because of their race, gender, or ..whatever.
– “Repeated studies have shown a link between board diversity and better financial results, and ‘there is an abundance of senior-level women and minority executives who more than meet the necessary qualifications for directorships”…(but one question is, does that sufficiently meet the requirements for all those ‘other underrepresented’ groups?)
– “We really would like to make sure that boards do not approach this process with a check-the-box mentality.”
– Also, especially interesting to us is the Nasdaq’s ‘directive’: Nasdaq—which would require listed companies to have at least one woman and “another director who is either a racial minority or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer…”
Not to put words in NASDAQ’s mouth, but, “a board must have one woman”…and, if you don’t have a ‘racial minority’, a ‘gay, lesbian, transgender, or queer’, will do! dlh
https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/26/new-jersey-city-councilmembers-charged-1-in-5-mail-in-ballots-fraudulent/
Iowa AG Miller wanted to sign an amicus brief opposing Texas, in its challenge to Pennsylvania et al unlawful election processes. According to him he was stopped by Gov. Reynolds. Nothing regarding the matter from the Governor’s newsroom at this writing.
Rather pathetic if anyone thinks blocking Miller is enough.
If stopping Miller from joining an amicus brief is considered a trade-off then Miller run’s the state as he has checked Republicans who control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature and three of four congressional districts and both US Senate seats and a party that reflects a populous that voted overwhelmingly for Trump. That populous is being disenfranchised by unlawful activity in four other states.
Iowa Republican political leadership needs to support President Trump and election integrity and join with other states and political leadership in any substantial fashion possible.
Eighteen states have joined in support of or allied with Texas. But we read that supposedly more than 20 states have allied with Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan.
The dominant liberal medial is repeating ad nauseum that the Texas effort is unprecedented. The reality is that with Trump’s participation it is the essence of Bush v Gore the US Supreme Court case that essentially settled the 2000 presidential election. At issue was the fairness and lawfulness of Florida election processes focused on certain subdivisions of that state.
Iowa political powers need to do something. Here is an example of something when you don’t have an AG in your corner.
Pennsylvania’s House speaker and majority leader on Thursday filed an amici curiae brief with the Supreme Court against the state of Pennsylvania and in favor of Texas’s lawsuit against the commonwealth and three other states.
A brief (pdf) filed by Pennsylvania House Speaker Bryan Cutler and Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff, both Republicans, requests that the Supreme Court “carefully consider the procedural issues and questions raised by the Plaintiff concerning the administration of the 2020 General Election in Pennsylvania.”
Here is Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s statement regarding Texas vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al
DES MOINES — Attorney General Tom Miller’s statement on Texas v. Pennsylvania:
“We have been hearing from many constituents expressing support for, as well as against, the Texas attorney general’s lawsuit challenging the presidential election results in four states. Your voices have been heard, loudly and clearly. Your opinions matter to us. As always, we must let the law guide us in making decisions.
“As I have said, I would not have joined an amicus brief in support of this lawsuit because the 2020 elections were fairly and safely conducted by election officials of both parties. I continue to have faith in the integrity of the U.S. election. I cannot support a lawsuit that seeks to invalidate the votes of millions of Americans.
“Today my office was asked by another group of states to join an amicus brief supporting the defendants — Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia — in the U.S. Supreme Court. I support this brief for its primary arguments: One, the electors clause of the U.S. Constitution provides no basis to second-guess state courts in their interpretation of state law; and two, the states’ common-sense measures taken in response to the pandemic did not introduce widespread fraud.
“In regard to amicus briefs of this type, I am required to get the approval of Gov. Reynolds. We have sought her approval and she has declined.
“Regardless of Iowa’s involvement, the U.S. Supreme Court will give this lawsuit its due attention.”
|
|
Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, is under a federal investigation and would love a presidential pardon. His lawsuit is just more performative leg humping by someone desperate to curry favor with President Trump.
The various attorneys general who have joined his lawsuit all want to either get re-elected or seek higher office. Joining the lawsuit gives them some measure of ring kissing or protection from any rabid Trump supporters who wanted a “just fight” moment.
I personally think my company should pay me workers compensation for brain damage for having to read that lawsuit and related filings. It really is one of the stupidest bits of performative leg humping we have seen in the last five years. These attorneys general are willing to beclown themselves and their states all to get in good with the losing presidential candidate.
The suit is absurd on its face. These states seek to interfere in the internal affairs of other states when those states are not actually electing the President, but allowing their voters to chose members of the Electoral College.
Were this to succeed, which it will not, the states will start suing each other at every election as a bit of theater.
Let me explain just how absurd this case is:
This will persuade the fool and the gullible, but these are not meritorious arguments, particularly when many of the states on the plaintiff’s side of the lawsuit have done similar things and thus have unclean hands.
The level of debasement these people have been willing to engage in makes them seem more the ball-gagged gimp from Pulp Fiction, humiliating themselves for their master. They should be ashamed and embarrassed.
The bottom line is this — the voters of states must act within their own states and be responsible for their own elections. Texas does not get to dictate the internal affairs of other states particularly when Texas is not directly impacted by a fellow semi-sovereign nation within these united States of America choosing its own members of the Electoral College. The remedy is not the Supreme Court’s intervention on behalf of some sore losers, but challenging the electors in the House of Representatives, which these people know is a fight they will lose. But they already know that is the remedy too.
If Texas were to win this, it would dissolve the horizontal federalism of our union and only expand the powers of the federal government. It would also lead to a Civil War as a handful of states overturn the rules and laws of other states and dictate those states’ internal affairs. Wait for Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo to give this precedent a whirl. Wait for progressive states to start suing conservative states over religious liberty, transgender rights, police brutality, tax policies that “steal” residents of progressive states, etc.
If voters in Georgia are outraged with the outcome in Georgia, their remedy is not for Texas to save them from themselves, but for them to save themselves by moving to Texas or voting differently in the next election. Even the voters of Georgia do not constitutionally have the right to sue their own state for the general enforcement of election laws. Other states surely stand in even a worse position.
Empowering Texas in this case just empowers progressive states to do the same later. The mere filing of this case sets a dangerous precedent. Ultimately, however, the Supreme Court is unlikely to give Texas what is wishes and Ken Paxton perhaps will not get his pardon.
I’m really tired of the Republican Party beclowning itself for a losing candidate out of fear for that candidate’s voters. That is all this is and delusions of fools notwithstanding, despite all sorts of stupid arguments being wrapped in pomp and “equal protection” phraseology, the election is over and Joe Biden will be President-Elect officially next week.
Guys, come on — you’re just going to spark crazy to violence at this point. The election wasn’t stolen and most of you know it and those of you who don’t know it need to, at some point, realize you’ve been lied to. And frankly, Ken Paxton needs to work on repentance for a whole lot of stuff.
Preliminary note: We would appreciate readers forwarding any feedback received from Iowa elected officials or other political leadership regarding Texas v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
While 17 states have done so (article below) this is the sort of stuff you may be hearing as to why Iowa political powers have not done anything substantial to support the Texas lawsuit.
“Well gee-wiz V’PAC don’t you know Iowa has a terrible Attorney General so we are just stuck on the sidelines” – It is the ~~ there is nothing we can officially do ~~ sort of response we addressed in our earlier post
Or “YOU HAVE NO IDEA what it takes to call a special session of the legislature” We would simply offer the succinct reponse we dont care when the political call is compelling (and for your own electoral good).
And there are the non-answers:
“The Governor is monitoring the situation and rest assured is very concerned”
Or the one that gags a dung beetle “Iowa’s election process is very secure and fair and it is too bad other states don’t have our wonderful system” (highhanded integrity violations occurred this election, no system has a high degree of security that has politicians emphasizing vote by mail)
And there is the “many of us have publicly voiced our deep concern and objection to what appears to be suspicious occurrences in other states and called for a hearing sort of response.Probably from those impressed by a press release issued by the Iowa Republican State Central Committee.
All of this falls short of using their political standing and prestige to arrange for an amicus filing of their own, perhaps joined by other states or political entities or civil rights organizations. The money, which would be minimal in the scheme of things, could be readily raised from their contacts.
But what about standing?
Of course the concept, one of the more fungible legal concepts, is often invoked helter skelter by biased jurists to deny a hearing to a litigant with cogent arguments they could not with a straight face deny if the case were to be heard. The same biased jurists will agree to hear cases on matters they want to resolve from a litigant with a strained level of injury, if any, just because the matter might come up or for whatever reason they view the matter as ripe.
In our judgement any voting citizen ought to be able bring these election integrity matters in an election they voted in (perhaps consolidated with others ) and have the matter heard at an appropriate level. But as we are told the Texas case is on the docket or at least at a stage being entertained by SCOTUS such that surely adding or joining in an amicus filing would be possible. If nothing else we plead with elected Republicans leaders to show Republicans in the state your concerns (for your own good) by seriously helping to fund efforts of others using your political auspices.
Is it “too late”
Well it was not too late for other states earlier today. That said there are other cases still potentially active (although ultimately SCOTUS will have be the decider). Those have not advanced as fast because of the advantage a dispute between states has under the Constitution as they are afforded the right to direct hearing when it involves a dispute between states. On some Team Trump and Team Powell/Wood have been unreasonably, or for corrupt reasons, denied standing or been told they are “too late” for trial or appeal. But some of those are actually still appealable.
They have lots of evidence of violations of statutory civil law or actual criminality that a judicial system with dependable integrity would hear. What is the harm in trying to bring the evidence to trial with sworn testimony rather than let matters fester?
We understand SCOTUS declined “injunctive relief” regarding a compelling case brought by legislators in Pennsylvania ,which given testimony of monumental fraudulent activity and lawlessness in the public record, seems outrageous. However the turn-down was for the immediate injunction requested and not technically, we are told, a turn down of a hearing on the corruption. So we wonder if the key issues are not covered in the Texas case (which involves Pennsylvania).
Regarding our challenge to Senator Cruz.
We posted our irritation with Senator Cruz a couple of days ago regarding his overwrought slander of a no effect overwrought comment by attorneys trying to do the best for America. We stand by that criticism . We went on to ask of the good senator what he has done other than issue Tweets about the election frauds perpetrated against President Trump and those who voted for him.
Reports after we posted our comments (as a matter of time-line and nothing else) that Cruz offered to argue the Pennsylvania case before SCOTUS and later issued a statement of being disappointed in SCOTUS for not hearing it. We now read that President Trump has asked him to argue the Texas case. We think that regardless of whether the great work of preparing the legal briefs is done by others, that preparation for relating it to the court in oral arguments is a generous offer. We are not sure that Trump is in control of who argues it however and also whether it is arguably the best idea. Just inklings about jealousies at SCOTUS, but we are confident Cruz could carry the day before an objective Court but also that others are capable. Given their history (Trump and Cruz) the offers between them speak well of both.
