Looking back now at the great Presidential election theft of 2020, it becomes ever clearer that the best chance to bring it to a halt and reverse course was represented by the lawsuit of the state of Texas challenging the election result in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (summarized in the American Thinker here). Texas was joined by 126 members of the U.S. Congress and 17 state attorneys general in an amicus brief. The suit and the brief argue, I believe very persuasively, that authority granted by the Constitution to the state legislatures in choosing presidential electors was usurped by the executive branch in each of those states, creating novel voting systems that virtually invited voter fraud and that, in administering the vote, they practically assured that fraud did take place by, among other things, preventing proper observation of the voter count. They also argued that Texas had standing in the case because the election was national, not confined to choosing only representatives in the states in question, and the choice of electors by illegal means in those four states diluted the votes of the legally chosen electors in their own states. The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is the only judicial body that can resolve disputes between states, so it had immediate jurisdiction.
The suit was rejected by the Court on a 7 to 2 vote on the basis that the state of Texas did not have legal standing, that is to say, how the other states ran their elections was not properly any of Texas’s business. Those who want us to believe that the court ruled correctly point out that even the three new justices appointed by President Donald Trump voted with the majority.
One can’t help but notice that the case they make is very similar to that made by those who would assure us that Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., committed suicide. Even Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr concluded that he did. We had been sold the story that Starr, the former solicitor general in George H.W. Bush’s administration, was a hard-bitten conservative foe of the Clintons, not the Deep State swamp creature (who was later a member of Jeffrey Epstein’s legal team) that he clearly is. If Starr said that Foster was guilty of self-murder, then it surely had to be so, they wanted us to believe.
There is another big reason that we should bring up the Foster case. That is because Starr’s lead hatchet man for reaching the Deep State’s suicide conclusion, in spite of the tons of evidence to the contrary, was the young Yale University product (both undergraduate and law school), Brett Kavanaugh. He might well have been the junior member of the entire Starr team, but when Miguel Rodriguez, the man that Starr had chosen to lead the Foster investigation was overcome by conscience at pursuing what he had concluded was a big-time cover-up and resigned, it was Kavanaugh that Starr chose to replace him.
Now let’s look again at that Supreme Court vote breakdown. I don’t know of any similar Deep State connections of Neil Gorsuch or of Amy Coney Barrett, but it’s easy to see that if Trump’s three appointees had agreed with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, then the Court would not have played Pontius Pilate and washed its hands of all the skulduggery that went on in the election, and there is a very good chance that Donald Trump would now be embarking upon the second term of his presidency. Here we quote from that American Thinker summary article:
There is no remedy to correct the Nov 3rd election because ballots that did not adhere to election law cannot be identified as separate from those that did. An accurate count of legal ballots that were cast cannot be made. Therefore, as directed in the Constitution, it falls to the legislature of each state to choose electors as has been done in the past. Failing that, each state may determine not to submit any presidential electors.
The existing control of the four states’ legislatures by the Republicans would have been more than enough to put Trump over the top had the legislatures chosen the electors.
Would it have been the correct thing for the Court to do? Well, let’s look at what CNN had to say, before the decision was rendered, in an article headlined, “Why this Texas ‘election fraud’ lawsuit is a total and complete joke.”
Sounds serious! Except, it’s not.
Here’s why: Texas has zero legal standing to challenge how other states conduct their elections. Elections — including ones for federal offices — are solely the purview of individual states. States set the hour that their polling places will be open. They decide whether or not a voter is required to show a form of legal identification in order to cast the ballot. They decide on what dates their primaries will be held. And yes, they get to decide — as many states did in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic — whether or not to expand mail-in balloting.
Now just think about that a minute. In contradiction to the clear argument made by the state of Texas and those submitting the amicus brief, CNN is telling us in very confident terms that those states could have had just as fraudulent elections as they jolly well chose and the rest of us can just stuff it, and we’re not even being serious if we think the Supreme Court ought to have any say in the matter. To be sure, they paint the motives of the patently illegal actions of the executive branches of the four states in the best possible light, but that is not the nub of the case that they make.
It’s all about standing and, yes, politics. CNN continues:
Put plainly: There is NO way the Supreme Court is going to get involved in this sort of lawsuit. As Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in the conservative National Review, put it:
“The justices are not going to have the slightest interest in entertaining a sprawling lawsuit brought by an unaffected third-party state — one that, if Texas got its way, would forevermore thrust the Supreme Court into the thick of electoral politics.”
No, they are not. After all, the court dismissed — in a single sentence! — an attempt earlier this week by Pennsylvania Republicans to block the certification of the 2020 results in the Keystone State (where President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 81,000 votes).
The Supreme Court — led by Chief Justice John Roberts — has zero interest in dabbling in electoral politics. And this suit, brought by [Texas Attorney General Ken] Paxton, would force the court to do a lot more than dabble. If Paxton and Trump get what they want, it would effectively overturn the vote in four swing states — swinging not just those states but the presidency from Biden to Trump.
Take a serious look at that key quote from McCarthy’s article, though. For him to simply assert that the rest of the country is “unaffected” if the election is stolen in four states, facilitated by illegal changes in their voting procedures, clearly does not make it so. Writing for The Federalist, Margot Cleveland, in an article entitled “The Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Texas Lawsuit Failed the Constitution,” cited a statement by Citizens United that sums the question up:
When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court.
“It is hard to believe the justices put the constitutional question above their desire to avoid appearing to meddle in the 2020 election,” Ms. Cleveland concludes, and that is really the heart of the matter.
Notice another heavily loaded word that McCarthy has gratuitously thrown into his sentence, that is “forevermore.” What he is suggesting is that the Supreme Court should never involve itself in electoral politics, no matter how great the call for it might be on a legal and political basis. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, on account of the Court’s dereliction of its duty, we are now looking at a situation where forevermore, a substantial percentage of the population will have no confidence in the voting system, the cornerstone of any democracy. If there was ever a time for the Supreme Court to thrust itself into the thick of electoral politics, this surely was it.
Deep State Hacks
Andrew McCarthy, we might add, could well have more Deep State mire on him than Brett Kavanaugh. As Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, he led the 1995 prosecution of the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and 11 others for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. If you think everything was on the up-and-up about that, you need to read “Who Bombed the World Trade Center? – 1993” and “Did the FBI Bomb the World Trade Center in 1993?” Not only the FBI, we find, but also Israel’s Mossad seems to have been up to its eyeballs in the outrage.
The lead U. S. Attorney Office of the Southern District of New York from 1976 to 1980, for the record, was Yale graduate, Robert Fiske, who, as Attorney General Janet Reno’s chosen special prosecutor, performed the first cover-up of the Vince Foster murder before Kenneth Starr finished the job as independent counsel.
We might also add that Andrew McCarthy’s employer, the National Review, founded by Yale and CIA man William F. Buckley, Jr., is the favorite “conservative” publication that corrupt mainstream organs like CNN like to invoke. In the foreword to The Murder of Vince Foster: America’s Would-Be Dreyfus Affair, we note that the short, well-policed Wikipedia page for Christopher Ruddy’s critical Simon and Schuster-published book, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, manages to quote from not just one but from two National Review attackers of Ruddy’s work. The National Review is just about as Deep State as it gets.
Unfortunately, rigged elections have long been a feature of American life. This time, it was just a lot more massive and in-your-face, as though its obvious nature was intentional, designed to produce the maximum degree of outrage.
In an article in which he alludes to Patrick Buchanan’s 1996 campaign for the Republican nomination for president, Mike King states, “That campaign, (against Bob Dole) started out well, but crashed after relentless media attacks took their toll on ‘Pitchfork Pat’.” It was not the media attacks that did it, but outright vote fraud, particularly in the Arizona primary. I still remember it well. Buchanan was on a roll after winning the South Carolina primary. Illegal immigration from Mexico was one of his big issues, and a frontline state like Arizona seemed to be an easy state for him to win. The Republican Party appeared to be well on its way to having a candidate that its adherents could vote for rather than just voting against his Democratic opponent.
They’re difficult sites to find if you use the Google search engine, but you can read about the theft in Truth in Media, Gary North’s Specific Answers, and, in greatest detail, “A House without Doors: Vote Fraud in America,” by James J. Condit, Jr. Buchanan never made an issue of the theft, and by quietly folding his tent, he has managed to stay comfortably very near the center of the Washington establishment as a “respectable” conservative commentator.
I previously wrote about what looked like obvious vote rigging to the benefit of Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday in 2008, when she was running against the obviously much more popular freshman Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. The article is entitled “Grand Theft Primary.” It’s really very difficult to believe that such an abrasive and unlikable person as Hillary Clinton, without any discernible political skills, has ever been honestly elected to anything. The best line that President Trump delivered in his “Stop the Steal” speech on January 6 was that the saddest person around these days, in light of the big election theft that had taken place, had to be Hillary Clinton. “’Why didn’t they do that for me?’ she must be wondering,” said Trump.
Actually, that’s something that a lot of us are wondering about. She certainly campaigned as though she thought the fix was in. Joe Biden’s campaign was similar, and, as he has aged, he has become almost as disingenuous as Hillary, and he might well outdo her in demonstrable crookedness and decrepitude. How is it that Trump was permitted to beat Hillary, but not Biden?
I didn’t title this article, “Kavanaugh Stabbed Trump in the Back” precisely because I’m not sure about the answer to that question. To what degree is Trump a party to the big trick that is being played on the American public? Certainly, he is not the complete swamp-draining political outsider that he has convinced a lot of people that he is, as we show in some detail in “Who Is Donald Trump?” I commend to your attention in particular the section entitled, “Donald Trump and Christopher Ruddy.” When Trump chose Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, he had to have known exactly what he was getting. Ruddy, who exposes Kavanaugh’s Deep State corruption quite well in the book to which we have referred, actually recommended Kavanaugh for the job to his Palm Beach neighbor, Trump, so complete has his apparent transformation been. A further twist in the sad story that is being played out before our eyes is that the Trump followers who have deserted Fox News in droves because of Fox’s complicity in the vote theft are turning to Ruddy’s Newsmax network, thinking they might get an honest alternative there.
One thing that everyone should have learned from the experience of the 2020 presidential election is that, with our electronic voting system, no candidate should be considered to be legitimately chosen. Vote rigging is entirely too easy, and it has been going on for a long time, as we learn from James and Kenneth Collier’s 1992 book, Votescam: The Stealing of America. “If fair and free elections are ever going to reign in America again,” concluded the investigator Condit, “citizens in every county of the country must organize and demand easily read paper ballots, hand-counted by neighbors in each precinct in full public view, with the results posted at each polling place before the ballots leave the precinct.”
What Might Have Been
For the Supreme Court to have waded into the sea of corruption that the 2020 vote theft represented would have been a radical action, indeed, for that timid body. A lot of criminal activity by important, powerful people would likely have been exposed. One of the best things about the Texas lawsuit, from a purely practical viewpoint, is that it gave the Court an opportunity to overturn the election on very narrow, but solid, legal grounds. They could have done it, even with little time and no inclination to expose the full extent of the fraud. The Court was being asked to answer the question, “Did the states in question illegally change their voting systems for the 2020 presidential election?”
The obvious answer is “yes.”
You can well imagine, though, what the reaction would have been had the Court decided to follow the law, with Trump’s three appointees going with the majority. Businesses were boarded up in our nation’s capital on the eve of the election for a reason. It was for fear of the reaction to a Trump election victory. Imagine the massive violence we would have seen should it have appeared that Trump had been able to overturn the election through what looked like a pure political power play. You can be absolutely certain that that is how the press and the Democrats would have painted it, and all those people who are now making such a huge fuss about the really piddling violence that took place on January 6 at the Capitol building would have energetically egged the rioters on.
Seeing what the Left was capable of throughout most of 2020, with the virtual encouragement of the opinion-molding community and the Democratic Party, such thoughts had to be in the backs of the minds of Kavanaugh and his fellow justices. So, we might conclude that Joe Biden was chosen to be the President of the United States in 2020 not just through election fraud but through the unstated, but real, threat of violence.