Trump won the 2020 election. Everyone knows it. But how does he, or rather how do WE get back the diamonds that were stolen? And the bigger question, was the steal all part of an even greater plan, with further reaching goals?
She wasn’t supposed to lose in 2016. But they got caught, and that steal was stopped. The next 4 years set up the greatest sting operation in history, the 2020 election. All of Trump’s executive orders, the creation of Space Force, the insanity of 2020 WW3 threats, impeachment, continuation of Russia, Russia, Russia, “covid”, crimes against humanity, race wars, “mostly peaceful” riots, BLM, ANTIFA, mass insurrection and rebellion… and all of this noise setting the stage for the election theft via states violating their own election laws, federal statutes and the Constitution, plus rigged computer tabulation, fake ballots etc. They just couldn’t help themselves. They couldn’t see the massive trap being set, yet these greedy, arrogant evil people still went through with their plan to steal the election all to stop DJT and MAGA. Biden got 81 million votes? So blatant and in your face to the point where nobody truly believes such nonsense. But how do you wake up those still afraid or unwilling to admit it? Let the illegitimate ROTUS (Resident of the United States) and the unlawful administration run things even further into the ground for the next year. Let the clowns look so absurdly moronic. Let the media further expose their own involvement in this conspiracy as the propaganda wing. And most importantly, let all of the TRUTH come out to awaken the masses.
There seems to be two major theories about how Trump will return, as promised. One posits that Republicans will take over Congress with a massive red wave, elect Trump as Speaker and then with enough of a majority in both houses impeach the imposter Biden and Harris, thus using the presidential order of succession, making Trump president. As Patriot Patel noted, this wouldn’t be like Trump to find a back door into his own house being illegally occupied. Also, as PP also danced around the topic, this plan wouldn’t be legal because the current presidential order of succession isn’t constitutional. Neither the Speaker nor the President Pro Tempore are “Officers of the United States” and therefore, would not be eligible under the Constitution, regardless of the federal statute. Congress was authorized to create an order of succession, which they did on multiple accounts, but such statutes cannot violate the Constitution. The provisions of the current statute have never been challenged, but should they, SCOTUS must strike them down. Officers of the US can only come from the Executive branch (VP, Sec of State, Sec of Defense, Sec of Treasury etc.). If Trump is to return, this isn’t the way.
The second theory is that some states will “decertify” their Electors (AZ, WI, PA, GA, MI etc). This is the primary noise being pumped around MAGA circles. However, this theory also has no constitutional legal grounds. The states certainly have plenary power over aspects of running their elections and Electoral appointment process, HOWEVER the Constitution still gives Congress certain supreme authority over Electoral appointments (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”), it lays out a very clear plan in regards to the Electoral process, and granted Congress the authority to deal with matters of presidential succession (and with that to some extent, Electoral disputes) through federal statutes. In this case, the power and involvement of the states ENDED on Dec. 14th 2020 (per 3 US Code 7). The states had up until that date to settle disputes and appoint Electors to give their votes. They did (or did they? We’ll get to that soon). At that point, the handoff was 100% over to Congress, who met on Jan 6th 2021 (per 3 US Code 15). It was the duty of Congress to raise any disputes over any Electoral votes, and then count accordingly (to “certify” the results and winner). After that point, Congress no longer holds any authority to “undo” any mistakes. Whether it or not it was legally presided over (see my speculative theory about Pence not being the VP at the time), the event took place, but as we know Congress certified the votes of unlawfully appointed Electors. There’s thus only legal, constitutional remedy left, and that’s SCOTUS. Congress doesn’t get a do over, and the states don’t get mulligans. They had their chances. They failed. Any further legal challenge is a judicial matter. “But SCOTUS didn’t hear the challenge!” True, SCOTUS didn’t hear some cases (they should have, but I’ll explain why they didn’t later) BUT they didn’t actually address any merit-based challenge, let alone the evidence. My theory is that they will eventually, when the timing is right.
The history of presidential elections disputes is complex and both interesting yet frustrating. Originally, the Constitution itself was unclear about the exact role of the VP in presiding over the count. Did he have the power to void certificates? In 1796, then VP John Adams unilaterally counted/accepted the Electoral certificate from Vermont, despite questions about whether the VT legislature actually enacted a law for appointing Electors. There was little dispute. Madison and ironically, even Jefferson agreed with Adams’ decision (“substance & not form should prevail… in favor of the choice of the people substantially expressed, & to prevent […] a Pseudo-president”). Only 4 years later in 1800, after arguably the ugliest race up until 2016 and 2020, then VP Jefferson followed Adams’ precedent and counted himself into the presidency despite massive irregularities in the certificate from Georgia, which was nowhere close to complying with the form dictated by the Constitution. Yet, Jefferson counted it, and all the Electoral votes for himself. In a letter from 1812, Adams appears to have complained about it though accidentally forgetting, thinking it had been SC and not GA (although, there was some big issues with the SC appointment process too… won’t bother you with those details).
Despite the 12th Amendment’s remedy to the Jefferson/Burr issue in 1800, there was no majority winner in 1824 so per the Constitution, Congress held a contingent election. The wrongly called “corrupt bargain” resulted in a win for JQA. Aside from 10 slave states illegally keeping Republican Electors off the ballot in 1860, the next biggest presidential election dispute wouldn’t come up until 1876. Dueling slates of Electors were sent to Congress from OR, FL, LA and SC. OR was fairly easy, since it was a matter of an Elector being ineligible and being replaced. The Reconstruction south, particularly FL, LA and SC were still a complete mess. In FL/LA, the lawful US recognized governors sent Hayes (R) Electors, but the contested Democrat governors sent Tilden (D) Electors. Two questions lay unsettled: who at the state level certifies the state results and Electoral appointments, the sitting or incoming governor, secretary of state or legislature? And the second question, who determines which slate is legitimate? Congress, VP or other? Due to the Constitution being unclear and no statutory law existing, a commission was formed of 5 House Reps, 5 Senators and 5 SCOTUS justices. Long story short, all disputed Electors awarded to Hayes, allegedly with the agreement by Dems to not object as long as Republicans would end Reconstruction.
Because of the 1876 fiasco, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The Electoral APPOINTMENT date from the previous 1845 statute remained the same (“election day” = 1st Tues after 1st Mon in November), but now the Electoral VOTE date was set to 2nd Mon in January and the Electoral COUNT date was 2nd Wed in Feb (remember, presidential term at the time, still ended on March 4th). The statute seemed to solve the questions about who at the state level certifies Electoral appointment (governor) and who COUNTS (opens, challenges, certifies etc) at the federal level (Congress, VP is purely ceremonial). The ECA 1887 eventually become what we now know as 3 US Code, when it was codified in 1948, albeit with some date changes (POTUS/VP term ends Jan 20th per 20th Amendment, Electoral VOTE date moved into December, and COUNT date moved to Jan 6th).
All dispute problems solved, right??? Perhaps not. 3 US Code didn’t explicitly repeal the ECA 1887, and yet now there were conflicting dates between the two. Did the Constitution explicitly grant Congress the sole authority to determine the legitimacy of the Electors appointed/certified by the states (legislatures, voters, governor) or the vote certificates of said Electors? SCOTUS was involved in the 1876 dispute. Why not any longer? It’s true that Article I Section 4 states that “Each House [of Congress] shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,” but it doesn’t say anything about being the Judge of presidential elections, returns of qualifications. Neither POTUS nor VP are members of Congress. So why should Congress have the sole authority to settle election disputes? Settle disputes… judge… JUDGE. Courts render judgements over ALL other inherently judicial matters. As is stated in Article III, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish […] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States […] to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State […] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Any election related case charging constitutional violations, that involves claims against a state, or the United States (such as Congress), falls under the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS (see 28 US Code 1251). Even with any case within the state level, such as a challenge of a citizen against another citizen, SCOTUS would still have appellate Jurisdiction. This is was happened in 2000. SCOTUS had appellate jurisdiction in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board but original jurisdiction in Bush v. Gore since Gore as the VP, was a “public minister.”
Some may argue that there’s no precedent for SCOTUS to “meddle” in election disputes, but alas, they are quite wrong. The two cases from 2000 were already mentioned, but SCOTUS was also involved in presidential election disputes, at the appellate or original level, at least 20 times previously, and 1 time since: Minor v. Happersett (1875) United States v. Cruikshank (1876) United States v. Reese (1876) In re Green (1890) McPherson v. Blacker (1892) Newberry v. United States (1921) Nixon v. Herndon (1927) Burroughs v. United States (1934) Breedlove v. Suttles (1939) United States v. Classic (1941) Smith v. Allwright (1944) Schnell V. Davis (1949) Ray v. Blair (1952) Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections (1959) Baker v. Carr (1962) Gray v. Sanders (1963) Reynolds v. Sims (1964) Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) Moore v. Ogilvie (1969) Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966) Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983) Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (2000) Chiafalo v. Washington (2020). And this list doesn’t even account for issues such as gerrymandering claims and voter rights violations.
There is also historical, legal precedent for the rejection/voiding of Electors. Even without any statutory guidelines, Congress settled Electoral vote/count disputes in 1864 (LA and TN sent Electors, but they were not counted due to the states having still been considered in a state of rebellion with no lawful government in place, nor lawful elections possible) and 1872 (no votes from AR/LA counted due to irregularities/fraud, and 3 GA votes voided because they were for Greeley after he had died), and as part of the Congress/SCOTUS commission in 1876. Of course, things got a little more clear after the ECA 1887 (if we ignore the questionable constitutionality of the act itself), but there would be a challenge in 1968 at the Count (accepted), Dems tried to object at the Count in 2000 (Gore [illegally?] prohibited the challenge process), Dems again tried in 2004 (challenged OH, no change), and obviously the attempted challenges in 2020. SCOTUS recently ruled in one case, Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) regarding WA & CO Electoral votes from 2016 (“faithless Electors” in several states, some were “replaced” but others weren’t and still cast votes for candidates other than Clinton/Trump). This was actually a massive case that mostly flew under the radar. SCOTUS unanimously ruled INCORRECTLY, claiming for the first time in judicial history, that the 12th Amendment Electors’ rights of “free agency” didn’t exist, and spat in the face of prior SCOTUS cases like Ray v. Blair (1952) that ruled or suggested otherwise. This is a topic for another day though…
The point here, is that because of alleged ambiguity in the Constitution, and lack of clarity and even questionable constitutionality in federal statutes, together with CLEARITY of parts of the Constitution (judicial power), despite all of the history of developments trying to settle who and how presidential election disputes are solved, we’re still stuck in the middle of a constitutional crisis. But are we? WHO, what one body, is clearly, specifically, charged with rendering judgements on matters of the Constitution, and of potential Constitutional violations? SCOTUS. And that’s where 2020 should have gone, and hopefully will go.
whoa, long indeed.....I will bookmark and read later tonite sir.
Theory 3- Trump isn't president because his term expired. The electoral college vote illegitimate (PPatriot explains this quite well in the first 1 or 2 of his series) and both houses of congress illegitimate as well. (The folks outright refusing the 1/6 committee subpoenas give some evidence of this, albeit circumstantial). The EOs and PEADs per PP's devolution explanation determine continuity of government structure, while acting president powers devolve to cabinet officer (in this case Pompeo, who never tendered his resignation). (I suppose this could get an extension of crazy by Trump appointing himself to be Scty of State as an interim appointment, thereby succeeding himself- since the Senate session is illegitimate, it's all interim now.)
Theory 4- Trump is still president. Although I don't like the term "president-in-exile" because he's not in exile at all, SLAG's series on the wartime president explains how this could happen legally with sufficient state legislators approving such a move outside the constitution, something the states are empowered to do. I remember hearing a lot about how Trump was phoning state legislators around the election time and meeting with them. So I think this is a legitimate possibility. It becomes easier if you consider the US corporation illegitimate, because you would only need a quorum of legislators from a smaller number of states.
There are a few other possibilities. Remember that Lincoln did some totally unconstitutional things (W VA for one, and the Missouri legislature was essentially usurped by a previously unrecognized legislature) that have nevertheless persisted. We can think all we want, but whichever way Trump and the military decided on, we'll only find out about it later, if at all.
A further possibility is that whatever they did, they may still use the Speaker of the House method as a show for the public. Q did say "the choice to know will be yours." I hate that thought enough that I shudder when I think of it, but it's still possible.
(Continued... character limit)
SCOTUS had multiple opportunities in 2020 and 2021 to address the steal, but didn’t, so why should we expect them to do so now? Firstly, because now we have ALL of the evidence of the theft. As I said at the very beginning, the 2020 election sting was a military operation. When was the last time national guard troops were used to “assist” with presidential elections? Just a coincidence that Space Force was created right before the election? You think the FBI had control over cybersecurity matters with the election? Think again. Space Force. Chris Miller. “VP” Mike Pence. International allies. State operatives. Even civilian patriots and digital warriors. COIN. Dems, RINOs and the media wanted to paint Trump as a dictator and leading a military coup to steal the election, to justify their push to start a violent civil war. Even if SCOTUS had rightly ruled, at the time, a large portion of the population would have viewed them as “stealing” the election the same way they allegedly did for Bush in 2000. Still a likely chance for violent civil war, initiated by the DS/left, who of course had already been engaging in rebellion and insurrection, but I digress. So instead of playing the SCOTUS card immediately, you wait until the populace has experienced a year of utter bungling and failure from the unlawful “Biden administration.” You further expose the media propogandists and reveal truth. By now, a much larger portion of the population has been awoken and are in better mental states to be able to ACCEPT the real evidence as true, and a ruling from SCOTUS as legitimate. Further, should the military have to act to enforce a ruling from SCOTUS (and possibly a contingent election of Congress), the vast majority of the populace are no longer a threat to resist.
SCOTUS can rule 1 of 2 ways: either all of the evidence proves that Trump absolutely won, or even if there’s not enough evidence to prove this, at the very least there’s enough evidence and legal argument to prove that multiple states had conducted unconstitutional elections, and illegally certified unlawfully appointed Electors. Thus even in this latter hypothetical, yet valid ruling, with those Electors’ votes voided (AZ, WI, PA, MI, GA), then no candidate got the required 270, and per the Constitution, a contingent election would be ordered in the House/Senate. Remember that said votes would be given by STATE delegations, which even right now Republicans hold a majority of delegations in BOTH houses. However, that’s only on paper as many Republicans in Congress are RINOS, DS, never-Trumper traitors. But if the expected Red Wave with MAGA candidates does happen in the upcoming midterms, then the majorities are increased to full proof levels. Leave no doubt, especially in this back up plan, worst case scenario plan. I would prefer that SCOTUS have the evidence and rule that Trump did win, but given SCOTUS’ inconsistency and unreliability, the latter contingent election might be the more likely outcome, as a vote by Congress might be seen by many still on the fence, as being the more acceptable “democratic” resolution, as opposed to a [wrongly] perceived SCOTUS mandate… optics is everything, after all.
So where does Devolution and Law of War play into all of this? I believe that “devolution” or rather continuity of government has taken place, although not exactly the way PP theorizes. An EO from POTUS setting up “devolution” is on very shaky constitutional grounds on the basis of implied war powers (as Kavanaugh rightly told Graham, the USA has been in a state of war since 2001… the “war on terror”). BUT the Constitution and legal federal statutory law does set up processes for continuity of government should there be a double vacancy for POTUS and VP. I believe that either Pence or Pompeo have been serving as the acting POTUS for the past year and thus have complete control over the military and essential offices. I’ve theorized that Trump 25th’d himself (section 3) at some point, likely on Oct 5th 2020, at the least to grant Pence the authority to conduct the military operation as ACTING POTUS and CiC. If Trump never restored himself to power, then Pence remained as acting POTUS throughout the Jan 6th count. If he was acting POTUS then he was not VP and thus the events of Jan 6th were not in accordance with federal statute or the Constitution, and thus are void. Therefore, there was no qualifying POTUS-elect or VP-elect to take office come Jan 20th. Thus, according to federal statute, in the case of double vacancy, the current acting POTUS (Pence) remains as such until a candidate(s) qualifies. And so all this time, acting POTUS Pence could have been and continues to run a devolution government, with the support of the military (see Pence’s comments with Miller at the Dec 18, 2020 Space Force anniversary, at the EEOB… the REAL white house “small letters,” as Trump said).
PP is right about the unconstitutionality of the presidential succession statutes… neither Pelosi nor Grassley could be eligible as neither the Speaker nor the President Pro Tempore are Officers of the US. So it’s also possible that Pompeo could have been involved in some 25th amendment plan, and became acting POTUS… remember the “white house website glitch” that announced the early term ending for both Trump and Pence? Perhaps they both resigned or declared inability, making Pompeo next up (since it’d be unconstitutional for Pelosi/Grassley)? Pompeo has been very, very active with foreign leaders… very much like a POTUS would be, or at the least, still the Sec of State under an acting POTUS Pence.
So if all of this is true, devolution is ongoing, SCOTUS restores the lawful government, and the military ENFORCES everything, then the Law of War comes into play for the prosecution of domestic rebels, insurrectionists and traitors, and CMA for foreign actors (YMCA… WHY MCA?).
Just my thoughts… but I’m not God.
cc u/TDU_Weight u/v8power
Bombs away!
Sure would love to find out what was in that soccer ball delivered to the GA courthouse... first domino?
Even without the lead, the band/backup singers ensure that the show goes on!
And if SCOTUS proves itself to be totally corrupt/compromised and doesn't take the issue or doesn't rule with option 1) or 2)? What then?
The people exercise their natural rights to change their form of government and will hopefully be supported by the military.
Thank you for your post. Very informative. I learned a great deal.
Yeah... worst case scenario. If it's the red wave we expect, impeach and remove Harris, leaving VP vacant. Then impeach and remove Bido. Double vacancy. Hello [MAGA selected] Speaker -> POTUS
I think with the coming of the 2000mules documentary, desertification will be the likely road. I think it will show Trump won and either he will take his place as POTUS, or we could have a redo. I don’t think a redo is the proper avenue as Trump clearly WON, but I’m excited that we are finally getting close to a resolution, whatever form it comes in.
Except that neither the states nor the Congress can decertifiy anything. SCOTUS alone has the power to essentially "vacate" the unlawful verdict. There is no constitutional mechanism for a "do over" or "special" election. Only options are declare Trump rightful winner, or void the unlawful Electors and force a contingent election in Congress, per the Constitution.
So, is SCOTUS compromised/? What's the story on the 3 newest justices not coming through as conservative? Why didn't they accept the states' case against the election, when the states' remedy is the SC? If this is just a role they are playing, they are still making permanent changes to the law of the land.
Nice posts though - learned a lot.
Possibly. We know the 3 leftists are what they are. Roberts is seemingly dealing with split personality disorder. Thomas and Alito are both based. It's the 3 Trump Appointees that are the unkown. They at times seem to be good, but they could have sided with Alito and Thomas to take the election dispute cases and didn't. Perhaps they had to restrain themselves, because this was part of the plan to prove that they weren't just Trump lackies. Need to get move evidence, indisputable proof seen and believed by 75-80% of Americans as opposed to 30-50% who at the time truly believed it was stolen. Let Biden and the Dems/RINOs absolutely botch everything for 2 years. Get people angry. Now far more are psychologically prepared to accept a SCOTUS election ruling as being legitimate.
Abortion? I meant ruling on the election dispute cases. Perhaps if they do indeed rule correctly in the abortion case, that's a signal that they'll rule correctly in the yet to be heard election cases