Please note that James E. “Trey” Trainor III, Chief Electoral Officer, head of the U.S. Federal Election Commission, a U.S. government agency, says the 2020 election is “invalid” in his “expert opinion.” https://www.publishedreporter.com/2020/11/22/nations-top-election-official-says-in-his-expert-view-the-2020-election-is-invalid-mainstream-media-having-meltdown/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThePublishedReporter+%28The+Published+Reporter%C2%AE%29
Appellate attorney Sidney Powell will be splashed all over mainstream news about splitting off from Trump’s legal team to try discredit her and Trump’s legal efforts. Trump’s legal efforts are his duty as President even if he were not up for election. No doubt, media will spin the announcement about Sidney Powell as a big negative. But it is not. It is expedient legal strategy. Where time is of the essence as it is here and now, a court could criticize and reprimand Trump and his legal teams for pursuing a less expedient legal process.
The recent announcement about Sidney Powell’s legal efforts probably has to do with standing, appearance of conflicts of interest, and whom the various legal teams represent.
Powell will be representing Americans, that is individual voters who have been damaged by having been de-frauded of their constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Massive numbers of votes were changed or voted illegally. This case #(1) will be a SCOTUS case given how Powell has described the voter fraud by the software companies acting across multiple states and outside the U.S. This puts her in front of SCOTUS almost immediately. This case is much, much bigger than this 2020 election. Sidney is impressive.
The standing of the other lawyers on the other hand, Guiliani et al, will be based on representing #(2) Donald Trump personally and the GOP. This also could become a SCOTUS case, but with different legal points from Powell’s case. There is a clear case for U.S. citizen, candidate for president, Donald Trump, who also has the right to seek damages and remedies from the court. Probably these cases would first need to be heard in each state, and appealed individually in each state, where damages occurred, witnesses live, and different types of fraud occurred. This is similar to the Bush v Gore election case in Florida.
Case #(3) would be represented by a federal government solicitor in SCOTUS hearings, representing the office of the president itself, not Trump personally. Likely this will be presented when and if Pelosi refuses to swear in and seat the new members of the House of Representatives. This case could also demand that Congress repair election law. In this case, SCOTUS could declare the election invalid and also declare a winner, as it did in the Bush v Gore decision due to clear election fraud in Florida.
To avoid conflicts of interests, the plaintiff/client and funding for (1) will be individual citizens.
Client and plaintiff for (2) will be Donald Trump with GOP or PAC funding. These cases could be merged by the court with those of candidates from the states.
Client for (3) will be the office of the president as described by the Constitution. The remedy would be decided by SCOTUS.
It then becomes a decision by SCOTUS whether or not to merge one or more of these 3 cases and hear them as one case. I think that is unlikely because of the time it would require and the delay that would cause in calling a final outcome of the election.
It is true that President Trump knew the voter fraud was coming, as did about 70 million Americans, and he and others said so many times before the election. However, it is not true that Trump did nothing about it. He took action and is taking actions which are legal and in fact his duty since he knows the election is corrupt. However, his possible actions are constrained by law. Please see the Executive Order issued September 12, 2018, as well as examples of other actions listed here. https://budbromley.blog/2020/11/19/executive-order-on-imposing-certain-sanctions-in-the-event-of-foreign-interference-in-a-united-states-election/
Any action by Congress before the election with regard to vote fraud and integrity was hobbled and prevented by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. It is also true that Republicans in Congress did almost nothing to prevent this fraud. The Senate for its part did confirm 3 SCOTUS justices. Congress was distracted from the known issue of vote integrity by the continuous Democrat-led Russia investigation, the fake indictment and trial of General Michael Flynn (Trump’s national security adviser), the $40 million Mueller investigation of Trump, and the fraud impeachment by Pelosi and her sycophant Dems. This is playing out like a Tom Clancy novel, except it is real, and the villains are inside the gate.
IMHO, SCOTUS will punt it back to the House. The Constitution contains clear rules for elections where the Electoral College is tied or their vote is contested. The vote is contested in several states as well as the Federal Election Commission. The fraud has become far worse than it was when SCOTUS reviewed the Florida election and then decided the U.S. presidential election in favor of George W. Bush instead of Al Gore.
No doubt Nancy Pelosi has a plan to stop that constitution-specified one vote per state election in the House. That election would go to Trump. She will probably refuse to swear-in and seat the newly elected members of the House in time (because the election is contested), therefore the new House would not be able to vote for President as required by the Constitution. After that the nation is in very dangerous unconstitutional territory. The House would be unable to pass or vote on a new law to remedy the situation since it members are not yet sworn in and seated. So the issue may go back again to the SCOTUS. Pelosi and Schumer probably have some other scumbag parliamentary tricks up their sleeve as well. If Pelosi refuses to swear in and let the House vote, then the Senate could elect the vice president, as specified in the Constitution. The VP could then run the country as interim President until the legal cases are resolved. All of this is very messy.
My suggested solution has been to re-vote the election which has been declared invalid. SCOTUS could decide for that solution based on the laws and precedents requiring “equal protection.” That should be: Polls open. No mail-in ballots allowed. Full observation by poll watchers. All ballots signed and identified as registered voters and citizens. Hand counted. If vote-counting machines are to be used, the ballot including signature must be scanned. Total transparency required. Voter-ID required. That should have been U.S. law long ago. SCOTUS could now make it law. A secure vote is certainly implied in the Constitution and legal precedent of “one man or woman = one vote.”
First, many people do not recognize that it is very difficult, too difficult IMHO, to fire a federal employee. Presidents can fire political appointees, but 99% of the federal government are not political appointees. However, either the House or the Senate could have investigated, prosecuted and impeached any federal employee. They did not do that.
Congress could have and should still impeach Joe Biden for his $1 billion extortion of Ukraine, and for accepting money from Chinese agencies. That would mean that Joe Biden could never again hold a federal office. Congress could have investigated Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, Obama and Biden as well as many Obama DOJ and FBI employees for the faked Russia coup and attempted impeachment; Congress is negligent and derelict of duty in its failure to follow through on this coup and punish the perpetrators. IMHO, the American people will not regain confidence in their government until these crimes against the American people are prosecuted and the perpetrators receive serious punishment. If there is no punishment, then crimes such as this will become more prevalent and eventually there will be violent revolution, and that is exactly what the leftists want.
Second, elections are run by the states according to the Constitution, not by the federal government. The Constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government. Unfortunately, that legal concept was lost during the Civil War. There should be an amendment to the Constitution ratified by the states wherein standards are established for federal elections for important issues such as transparency, fraud, penalties, voter ID, etc.
America has a long way to go. We are not in Kansas anymore. We are in Venezuela, or Cuba, or Iran, or China.