Thursday, December 10, 2020

Op-ed:
Trump's Last Two Stands                                                                        By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on Right Side Patriots Radio

Our job is to make sure that the Constitution is followed and that every vote counts. In this case I am not sure every vote was counted, not in the right way.” -Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

Here's a scary thought folks and it comes directly from the U.S. Constitution. Following the January 23, 1933 ratification of the Twentieth Amendment that set January 20th as Inauguration Day with the then current president and vice-president’s terms ending at precisely 12 noon, if at that time there is no final result in the presidential race, the Speaker of the House, as in Nancy Pelosi, would become the acting president of these United States until said race was officially decided, called, and certified.

And with that being said we must now take a deep breath and also remember never to underestimate President Donald J. Trump or his legal team for time and again both have proven that what was once thought impossible is indeed possible. And here I'm speaking of an eleventh hour possibility of a second Trump presidential term, but it's a term that will have to come either via the Electoral College or the U.S. Supreme Court... or more likely via a combination of both. That will be explained in a bit.

So while President Trump recently stated that he would accept and only then concede defeat if media anointed president-elect Joe Biden were to attain the must have 270 electoral votes, don't just assume that Biden will necessarily reach that magic 270 number when the 538 Electoral College delegates meet next Monday, December 14th to cast those all-important votes even though this past Tuesday the Supreme Court rejected a Republican appeal to undo the certification of Pennsylvania's election results. "The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," were the court's order...an order which did not comment further or suggest any dissent among the court's nine justices. But note that the denial only pertains to the "emergency" injunctive relief suit, it does NOT deny Rep. Mike Kelly's original voter fraud case itself, a case which is still pending before High Court.

So while the Electoral College option for a President Trump victory technically still remains somewhat feasible...albeit it's a slim chance on its own at best...a new case now on the SCOTUS emergency docket...a case out of Texas...might just be the checkmate move we've been waiting for. But before we delve into that case from Texas, first let's revisit the Electoral College for just a bit. In Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution we find that it's the Electoral College who is the actual determiner of who wins the presidential election meaning that when one goes to the polls to vote for and hopefully help elect their presidential candidate of choice, what one is really doing is voting for a particular slate of electors who then cast their ballots for president and vice president.

Now here note that while said electors...who are actually appointed delegates...have technically “pledged to vote” for the candidate who received the most votes in their state (as in “winner takes all” except for Maine and Nebraska who proportionately allocate their votes), most states do next to nothing to stop their electors from breaking said pledge and voting for the candidate of their choice (hopefully in this case President Trump). And this is no matter that not too long ago the Supreme Court did restrict the power of these what would now be called “faithless electors” by ruling that each state can require its electors to support the winner of their state's popular vote, thus leaving “faithless electors” to face fines along with the possibility of being replaced in 32 of our 50 states.

But with this particular presidential election being the poster child for how to commit and get away with both voter and election fraud, I'm more prone and so very definitely proud to call those who would be “faithless electors” actually “conscientious electors” for they now would become electors who willingly choose to take a stand against overt injustice and cast their ballot not for basement dwelling Joe Biden, but for President Trump even while knowing they might be called to task.

So, if a majority of the current electors in any given state did break ranks by ignoring their “winner takes all” pledge, please know that they would not be the first to do so for the Electoral College has on five different occasions in the past picked a president who garnered fewer popular votes than his opponent. In 1824 the electors chose John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson; in 1876 they chose Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden; in 1888 it was Benjamin Harris over Grover Cleveland; in 2000 their choice was George W. Bush over Al “I invented the Internet” Gore; and thankfully in 2016 they chose Donald J. Trump over the media's anointed, Obama shill, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And know that the information I've cited regarding the Electoral College and its delegates are things one expects would pertain to what is a fair and transparent election not to an election riddled with overt in-your-face fraud...which is unfortunately the hallmark of this 2020 election. And with all the evidence now coming to light regarding fraud having been committed...the Georgia video below shows but one example...means that the laws regarding November's election's integrity have knowingly and willingly been corrupted by those with a decidedly dangerous political agenda...a criminal offense if ever there was one. But until the Department of Justice steps in to do the right thing...and with William Barr as attorney general I would not hold my breath for that...it's up to the Republican majority of state legislatures to ignore their state's “winner take all” pledge and appoint their own electors, which federal law does allow said legislatures to do if their states have “failed to make a definitive choice” by the actual day the Electoral College meets. 

 

And really, how can a “definitive choice” be made when voter fraud investigations are still ongoing, and with the a fore mentioned Texas case now on the High Court docket. Simply, they cannot nor should they be made especially when the only actual Electoral College decision deadline date required by the Constitution itself is the January 20th deadline of 12 noon.

Now as for the Texas case...the real hoped for smoking gun...a case that if the justices do the right thing as per the Constitution...we will rightfully see the election going President Trump's way. And here we first saw a legal brief being filed with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to look into the conduct of the election in Pennsylvania where their state court ignored the Constitution in regards to the conduct of the election. In fact, Article 1, Section 4, of the Constitution states that, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature …” means that the power for the conduct of federal elections is held by the State Legislatures in each state, but that in states like Pennsylvania and the other battleground states, the judicial branch, as per the brief, attempted to “seize control of these duties and obligations and to set their own rules,” hence these actions do appear to be unconstitutional. Simply, if such an action is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania it surely is unconstitutional for other states as well.

And so this passed Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton directly petitioned the Supreme Court...as in he filed a lawsuit against the battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin... claiming that changes made in these states regarding election procedures due to the COVID-19 pandemic actually violated federal law by instituting changes to election policies, whether they be “through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.” And Paxton wrote that these changes, which actually do require a state constitutional amendment to authorize said changes, allowed for voter fraud to occur, and thus the High Court should push back the December 14th deadline by which states must appoint their presidential electors.

So here regarding the Electoral College, the Texas case might win where the Pennsylvania case failed.

Also, in this lawsuit Paxton and his attorneys rightfully stated that,“That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm,” to which AG Ken Paxton and the others are most assuredly right. But in more simplistic terms, what the Texas AG rightfully did was ask the Supreme Court to block said battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" when the Electoral College assembles. And this request now ties directly back into what I stated earlier regarding the Electoral College, as this newest lawsuit, if won, will not only affect the Electoral College vote but will decide who really won the 2020 election...which I believe was President Trump.

And to give this lawsuit even more punch, if you will, know that Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota (and that number as I go to publication is up to 17 states) have all announced that they will be joining Texas in said lawsuit. And also know that this case cannot and is not being ignored by the SCOTUS because it's a fact that when a state files a lawsuit against another state, said lawsuit, by law, goes straight to the Supreme Court which it now has, and is now on the court's emergency docket. And this is much to the chagrin of Michigan AG Dana Nessel who claimed that Paxton's lawsuit suit was but "a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading." Tell that to the Supreme Court Ms. Nessel.

So while the justices set a Thursday deadline for the four battleground states to respond to Paxton's claims, their responding to said claims does not signal the end for the SCOTUS by law must still hear the case, hence it's on their docket. And I wouldn't be surprised if Sen. Ted Cruz is the one to argue the case before the High Court for no one knows the constitutional legalities of the law better than he does.

So now we sit and wait for the Texas case to be heard and for the evidence to be presented. And if the justices do the job the Constitution tasked them with...while most definitely putting partisan politics aside...and if they par down all allegations to simply following the letter of Constitutional law...they will not only rule in Texas' favor, but call to task those who willfully and with malice intended tried to sway what is supposed to be a free and fair election. And for the uninformed and the misinformed this simply means that all legal votes must be and will counted and that all illegal, fraudulent, and unverified votes must be and will be thrown out. And really, isn't that what the Constitution and “We the People” should not only ask for but demand...I would surely hope so. Case closed.

Copyright © 2020 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All rights reserved. 

*************************************************************************************                                                  For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article, COVID-19 and FRAUD-2020.

**************************************************************************************************************************
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS
...LIVE!

Tomorrow, Friday, December 11th, from 7 to 9pm EST,  RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'Trump's Last Two Stands'; 'COVID-19 and FRAUD-2020'; and important news of the day.

Hope you can tune in to RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on rspradio1.com. Click 'LISTEN LIVE' starting at 6:50 pm EST with the show beginning at 7pm EST. 

No comments:

Post a Comment