The Wartime Presidency Part V

Why did SCOTUS Punt on Election Fraud?

Monday, December 7, 2020.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton files a lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of the State of Texas against the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In the lawsuit, A.G. Paxton argued that these states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring their own state and federal election laws. As a result, ignoring these laws was enough to skew the election results to favor Biden over Trump.

Friday, December 11, 2020:

Despite the support of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, the court declines to grant certiorari and issues a curt statement.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

In the statement, the court said, “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections” and slammed the door on the matter.

This came on the heels of another SCOTUS certiorari denial on December 8 that sought to block Pennsylvania from submitting its electors by making the argument that the Pennsylvania legislature’s expansion of vote-by-mail in 2019 was illegal.

Patriots were understandably upset. They felt as though the Supreme Court was as corrupt as the rest of the federal government, and that when push came to shove, the government would serve its own interests rather than those of the people.

In an interview, Patel Patriot asked me why I thought SCOTUS punted. At the time, I told him that the reason they punted was the question before the court wasn’t brought by the right plaintiff, and the question wasn’t the right one.

This article will attempt to flesh that reason out further, and by the end I hope you have a better understanding of what happened and why, as well as what may be coming - because I think SCOTUS has a future role to play in our drama.

Issue One: Why did SCOTUS Punt?

Let’s look at the question and the plaintiff:

Texas A.G. Ken Paxton, a strong Trump ally, took it upon himself to represent the people of his state and sue four other states over their submission of electors to the electoral college.

What do we have here? We have a state officer making the claim that other states violated federal and state election laws in order to skew the results and elect Joe Biden. He is claiming that the election of Biden wouldn’t have happened if the states in question followed the law. He claims standing by making the claim that this was a election for the presidency, and the decisions made by the President would affect Texas citizens. Therefore, because Texas followed the law and Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin didn’t - Texas is harmed by the allowance of these four states to send electoral votes to congress for the count on January 6, 2021.

Forgive me, but this case was always a Hail Mary - and here’s why.

Paxton claimed that the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin broke their respective state laws and federal law in the manner they conducted their elections.

Well that’s a law enforcement problem - not a constitutional one.

Furthermore, in his argument, Paxton claims that Texas would suffer harm if Biden were elected illegally - no matter how eloquently that statement is made, at the time it was nothing more than speculation. You can’t truly know if Texas would suffer harm prior to the action occurring.

Combine these two glaring issues in the Texas lawsuit and you’ve got a solid reason for a cert denial, and that’s exactly what happened. You’ll notice that Justice Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh voted to deny cert. That’s because they’re doing their jobs as constitutionalist judges - it’s not to simply rubber stamp “Aye” on everything that comes across their bench that benefits conservatives.

If SCOTUS took this case and intervened in the election process it would have torn the country in two. Patriots might have liked the outcome, but that doesn’t change the fact that from the outside, this is a Trump ally attempting to use SCOTUS to intervene in the sovereign elections of other states. Furthermore, granting cert would have crossed a line and caused the Supreme Court to seize power from the Legislative branch.

Power seized from you - the People of the United States of America.

The constitution says unequivocally that the power of choosing electors is the sovereign domain of the individual state legislatures - no one else. It was not proper for SCOTUS to intervene, and thank God they didn’t. If they did, they would have created precedent for a future court to intervene in a future election where the establishment didn’t like the choice of the people, and took the issue to SCOTUS…like if someone like Trump won a future presidential election. This road not taken would be just the thing the establishment would need to usurp the will of the people and install the “correct” choice of candidate.

Dangerous waters there, matey.

Aside: I know that the cert denial irrevocably damaged the court’s reputation with many patriots, but it’s my hope that this explanation helps with the why SCOTUS chose not to intervene, and gets us thinking about the dangers to the republic had they done so. That being said, when SCOTUS issues an opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen you’re going to LOVE it - because that’s a case where it’s a cut and dry argument of the government versus the citizen, and those new constitutionalist justices are going to give New York and every other blue state a heart attack, just wait and see.

Issue Two: Now for some speculation.

I also think that we’ve gotten a decent strategy tip as to where this is going with SCOTUS - and from a very unlikely source.

We know from the public release from the January 6th committee on June 15, 2021 that the acting Solicitor General, Jeffery Wall received an email from President Trump’s White House Assistant that had attached a legal brief and instructions to review this brief and to then file it with the Supreme Court.

Here it is in full:

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/new-documents-show-trump-repeatedly-pressed-doj-to-overturn-election-results

From the release;

“On December 29, 2020, President Trump’s White House Assistant emailed Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donoghue, and Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, attaching a draft legal brief to file in the Supreme Court.  She wrote, “The President asked me to send the attached draft document for your review,” and provided a phone number so they could contact the President directly.”

Also, the brief laid out the strategy that was going to be used in court. Again from the release;

“The draft 54-page complaint demanded that the Supreme Court “declare that the Electoral College votes cast” in six states that President Trump lost “cannot be counted,” and  requested that the Court order a “special election” for president in those states”

Bingo.

The January 6 committee - blinded by its abject hatred of Trump, has just shown me exactly how Trump is going to use SCOTUS to overturn the fraudulent election.

Now - The committee itself is silent on the question of “did this brief actually get filed with the court?” And that tells me that it probably wasn’t. The narrative is;

Trump was like a caged animal, with the walls closing in - grasping at straws to try to maintain power, and all of these clams and attempts were crazy…maybe even illegal.

So according to that narrative, the DOJ recognized that Trump had lost it and decided to slow roll the filing of the brief with SCOTUS and it died a quiet death after January 6.

Key takeaway:

The brief was probably never filed. If it were, the committee would have used it as “evidence” against President Trump. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be filed some day.

That’s an important data point. Let’s file that away for now.

Let’s fast-forward from December 29, 2020 to January 6, 2021.

President Trump’s plan on January 6 was to have an alternate slate of electors assigned during the electoral vote count.

Pence said in his letter to congress on January 6th that he was going to follow the constitution, and he acknowledged that there were significant irregularities in the 2020 election.

You may view Pence’s letter here:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/pence-letter-on-vp-and-counting-electoral-votes/9d6f117b6b98d66f/full.pdf

As the presiding officer of the electoral vote count, he could not unilaterally reject electors…but one congress member and one Senator could raise an objection, and thereby start a process by which the electoral votes from a state could be rejected.

Look at the boxed portion of the letter. This is what Pence said he was going to do!

And that’s exactly what he did. When the electoral votes from Arizona, the first state to be counted were brought up for a count, Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ-4) objected with 60 other house Republicans. The objection was signed by one of the Senators of the State of Texas, Ted Cruz.

Watch the video clip - do you hear the howls of protest from the Democrats? They knew this would have started a process that they would have been unable to stop and would have ended with Trump being returned to the White House!

The states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Michigan sent two slates of electors to Washington because of irregularities that were observed in the 2020 election. That was more then enough to deliver Trump an excess of 270 electoral votes. Evidence uncovered by the Trump Administration was also going to be presented (remember Rudy Giuliani meeting with state legislatures prior to January 6?).

I am confident that had this process been allowed to continue uninterrupted, there would have been enough Senators and Congress members to reject Biden and seat Trump as President - and it would have been legal and in compliance with the US Constitution.

Sadly that was not to be, and Democrat operatives let protesters into the Capitol building to disrupt the proceeding and to shut it down over security concerns. What also happened was the protest on that day was immediately branded as a “violent insurrection” by the media and that gave enough political capital for the Democrats to shut down the objections to electors and whip any conservative Democrats and RINOS into line.

The Democrats wanted an outcome and that’s what they got - regardless of what the law, process, and the actual evidence said.

Issue Three: The critical public image of the Supreme Court’s impartiality 

Whether planned or not, SCOTUS guarded its image on December 11th. This was so masterfully done it’s my suspicion that the Trump administration had some input.

By rejecting the lawsuit from Texas the court was kept in reserve in case a constitutional crisis was needed to return Trump to his rightful place as President of the United States.

In addition, two out of the three justices that Trump nominated to the Supreme Court voted to reject cert to the Texas case. Leftist pundits were quick to use this fact as evidence that allegations of election fraud were nonsense,

“See? Trumps own Supreme Court pick won’t even support him! These allegations of fraud are lies! They’re even seditious!! Reeeeeee!!!”

Of course, one - rejection of cert doesn’t mean what the liberal politicos think, and two - they missed the important bits;

1. Trump didn’t bring this lawsuit - Texas did. That’s a critical point in establishing standing in a lawsuit, and the primary reason SCOTUS denied cert.

2. The court denied cert, but they never looked at any evidence that supported the lawsuit. Denial of cert and rejection of evidence of election fraud and then issuing a judgement against the plaintiff are not the same thing.

3. The Supreme Court held that Texas had no standing under Article III of the US Constitution. That’s critical - SCOTUS stood up for and defended a state legislature’s sovereign right to choose electors under the Constitution - and that’s important no matter the outcome.

4. In the dissenting opinion for the rejection of cert in the PA case, Justice Thomas said, “That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election, but that may not be the case in the future." Did you catch what Justice Thomas said? Justice Thomas gives critical insight through his dissenting opinions on certiorari rejections - and he did so yet again in this case. Patriots probably wouldn’t have gotten the outcome they wanted had the Court granted cert to the Texas case.

I cannot express in words how critical it is that SCOTUS stay out of partisan fights - because they’re going to play a future role in our little drama.

Which makes me think something else.

I think Trump may have asked SCOTUS to nuke the Texas case.

I think Trump manipulated Chief Justice Robert’s sensitivity towards the Court’s appearance of a non-partisan branch of government and privately supported the certiorari denial for two reasons;

1. The court’s public image of a non-partisan government branch would be critical if the court were needed to examine the evidence of election fraud as an avenue to return the Presidency to Trump.

2. Trumps main avenue of attack was the counting of the dueling slates of electors from AZ, NM, NV, GA, PA, WI and MI. He was going to use the process for disputing electors that’s in the constitution, and relying on key Allies in the House and Senate.

Why do I say this? Why do I see Trump’s hand in the certiorari denial?

My main reason is that the denial of certiorari in the Texas case as well as the Pennsylvania one were too elegant. This move set the political chessboard up for moves that would occur 50 turns down the road - and the future moves I’m talking about will bring about the destruction of Trump’s enemies.

Moves like that don’t happen without careful thought and deliberate intervention. Trump needed SCOTUS to maintain ambivalence towards him as a candidate or as a future plaintiff.

The certiorari denial - most critically by Trump’s own SCOTUS picks - allows Trump to point at the court and say, “You see? They beat to their own drum! There’s no telling what they’ll do!” This is, of course, intentional subterfuge. 

You can bet that SCOTUS will issue opinions that rigidly follow the US Constitution - and Trump will have the constitution on his side.

Want to see what he’ll do?

Issue Four: The future role of SCOTUS

Now that we’re one year into the Brandon administration, and a stolen election needs to be resolved, a constitutional crisis is probably going to form soon.

I see the constitutional crisis taking one of two forms;

Constitutional Crisis One:

Enough States decertify their electoral college votes to put Biden under 270. Remember how the constitution says State legislatures have absolute sovereignty over their choice of electors?

This process is underway as we speak. Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin have already begun investigations into their respective 2020 elections. These states represent more than enough electoral votes to push Brandon under the 270 vote threshold.
Once that happens, Brandon did not win the electoral college and is no longer President.

SCOTUS would have to get involved at that point, as a nicely wrapped constitutional question would be placed before the court.

What happens when a President has their electoral votes revoked by several states and those revocations push the total under 270?

That unique set of circumstances has never materialized in our nation’s history, and those types of questions are precisely what the Supreme Court was created to answer.

They’ll grant a writ of certiorari for sure.

Constitutional Crisis Two:

Trump shows up to Washington DC one day and reveals a Presidential Emergency Action Directive that names him President-in-exile as a result of an attack and successful color revolution by an enemy nation.

President Trump assumed control of a government-in-exile as part of a critical continuity of government procedure because a unique set of circumstances occurred.

An enemy nation conspired with both national political parties to instill their chosen candidate against the will of the people of the United States of America.

This created a situation that is in essence the same as if the United States was attacked with nuclear weapons and the enemy put a puppet in control of the radioactive ruins of the nation.

However, “President” Biden was elected by the electoral college with 306 electoral votes. The process spelt out in the Constitution was followed, and Joseph R. Biden was inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States on January 20, 2021 at 12:00 noon.

You cannot have two presidents - especially not in this age of nuclear weapon command authority. Those orders from the president must be CRYSTAL clear and unambiguous. The military WILL NOT TOLERATE a situation like this - it strikes at the heart of national security and puts the nation at grave risk. 

In Part III of my series, I called this situation SCOTUSMANIA 1. That name was in jest, but the constitutional crisis it describes is quite deadly serious.

Again - this is precisely the sort of question that SCOTUS was created to answer.

And again, they’ll grant a writ of certiorari - because there will be a very, very worried military that will demand an answer.

Now, these two scenarios aren’t connected to each other. They were intentionally listed in a one-two order because I think situation one is the preferred option, but option two is in reserve if it’s needed. Both could even be played - the first preferred option that’s beneficial for most parties, and the second “nuclear option” that’s to be activated in the event SCOTUS fails to act.

Option one would also allow devolution and the presidency-in-exile to remain shrouded in secrecy, and everything I’ve seen so far leads me to believe that Trump and the portion of the military that knows about this would prefer to keep it that way - but trust me if it’s necessary to reveal a PEAD in order to correct this wrong perpetrated upon the American people, Trump will reveal that PEAD.

Count on it.

What’s Trump going to ask the court for in terms of relief?

He’s going to ask for new elections - as described in the email obtained by the January 6th committee;

“The draft 54-page complaint demanded that the Supreme Court “declare that the Electoral College votes cast” in six states that President Trump lost “cannot be counted,” and  requested that the Court order a “special election” for president in those states.”

Wait - isn’t 2022 an election year?

Why yes, yes it is.

I’ll remind everyone that if Trump won a special election in 2022, he would be sworn in on January 20, 2023. This would allow him to serve the constitutional maximum of 10 years as President.

I love it when a plan comes together.

The coming convergence…Summer 2022:

I’m now going to speculate when this might happen.

I have no inside knowledge or special sources that are feeding me information. I have to rely on logic for this one and here’s what I’ve seen;

When is it a good time to attack your enemy?

You attack him when he’s distracted.

A distraction like a Supreme Court Justice nomination and confirmation process - with a few Durham and Weiss indictments thrown in for fun.

Once Breyer retires this summer, and the 2022 election is in full swing, I think there will be a few high profile people indicted, and I think that’s the perfect time for Trump to strike with a constitutional crisis.

Think about this, there’s a coming convergence of events and opportunities that will form in the summer of 2022;

• SCOTUS nomination & confirmation process

• Election in full swing for a contested house and Senate

• Demoralized Democrat voter base

• MAGA is stronger than ever - ready to ride a red tsunami into Washington

• Democrat congressional leaders are unable to keep their troops in line - see Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin

• On 2/2/22, it was announced that Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) has suffered a stroke, this puts the voting Makeup of the house at 50 R / 49 D and makes SCOTUS confirmations nearly impossible

• Republican leaders are able to keep their troops in line and unified - see Senator McConnell

• Pending Durham indictments

• Pending Weiss indictments

• Several states looking at decertifying and then reclaiming their electoral votes

• Pending origins of COVID evidence dropping

• Pending Dong Jingwei evidence release

• If Trump is elected in a special election in 2022 - he will be able to serve the constitutional maximum of 10 years as president

If Trump is going to act, this summer is the perfect time. 2022 is the year we are going to know which way this drama will go - will Trump act or will he wait until the election of 2024?

I can’t tell the future, but I can tell you that  Summer is a good time to pay attention - Be ready.

The best is yet to come.

SLAG