Conti. U.S. Election Fraud: The Court As Pilate, Procedural Reasons

12 Dicembre 2020 Pubblicato da Marco Tosatti

Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, Dr. Leo Conti sent us this article on the American electoral fraud, and the pilatesque attitude of the Supreme Court. Good reading.

§§§

2020 ELECTIONS FRAUD: STATES TAKE ACTION BUT THE COURT TURNS THEM DOWN

(DR. LEO CONTI – WASHINGTON, DC)

For over a month, the repeated refrain by pro-Biden newspapers and TV channels (namely almost all of the better known ones) has condemned, without investigation, all doubts on the integrity of the November 3 elections, and admonished President Trump to cease all efforts to reverse the presidential election results, meaning those immediately proclaimed by these information (or, better, disinformation) agencies, without waiting for the exhaustion of the procedures for their certification. Unimpressed by these calls, President Trump has continued his fight. At his Georgia rally on December 5,[1] he repeated what he had said three days earlier, namely that he would observe his duty, as president, to defend the constitution and laws of the United States, and to protect the electoral system against the “tremendous and horrible fraud” that took place in the 2020 elections.[2] On that occasion, Trump provided additional details to what, since November 19, his team of lawyers headed by Rudy Giuliani has kept denouncing.[3]

That there were some (or, better, many) irregularities in these past elections was confirmed by what observers attentive to the facts have discovered.[4] One of them[5] remarked that Trump increased his number of votes by a stunning 20% compared to 2016, he widened Republican appeal among minority voters, and he was decisive in how his party over-performed expectations at the national and local levels, contrary to fake predictions. Any one of these factors, under normal circumstances, clearly pointed toward a Trump victory. Yet, on the night of November 3, when Trump was enjoying a leading margin over his opponent, some inexplicable events occurred, i.e. the suspension of vote counting in swing states, the sudden appearance of an inordinate number of mail ballots (known for being the preferred modality of voting fraud),[6] and final results that reversed Trump’s lead, giving Biden upper margins in those very states where, oddly enough, they were needed. In light of these events, is it really surprising that such a high percentage of Americans (Republicans, but also Democrats) are convinced that these last elections were marked by systematic fraud?[7]

In addition to these suspicions (made plausible by comparing these elections with earlier ones), the bare facts speak aloud. Though many raising doubts about the integrity of these past elections have been the target of intimidation, some of the insiders who had seen how the elections had worked out found the courage to give their witness even at the cost of their career and personal safety. Their testimonies at the hearings that took place in Michigan are enlightening:[8]

(1) “In a country like India, we have a national identification card, without which we cannot vote; when we enter into this country, we have a retina scan, we have fingerprints, [but when, as nationals eligible to vote, we vote here in the US,] which is the single most important thing any person can do, this vote is cast without an ID, without any kind of oversight. All this fraud that is happening is heart-breaking. That’s why I decided to put myself here.”

(2) “I’ll tell you why [more people have not come forward]: my life has been completely destroyed because of this, I’ve lost family, I’ve lost friends, I’ve been threatened, my kids have been threatened, I’ve had to move, I’ve had to change my phone number, I’ve had to get rid of social media, I can’t even get an actual job any more. Democrats like to ruin your life. That’s why!”

(3) “[The software system used in the elections] is designed to be inaccurate; if an individual or a team of individuals had a malign purpose, this would be the tool that I would want to use”.

These statements are similar to hundreds of others provided in affidavits, with the risk, if found untrue, that their authors may end up in jail.

And this is not all. Some states went to court. On December 7, Texas brought an action against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin before the US Supreme Court, which has original and exclusive jurisdiction on controversies between states. In a couple of days, this case assumed impressive proportions: 18 more states supported Texas, President Trump himself intervened before the Court as a candidate in the presidential elections, and various amici curiae submitted a growing number of briefs in support of either side.[9]

In his bill of complaint, Texas did not mince words, as befits the gravity of the question before the Court:[10]

“Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.”

“Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President – any President – is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.”

“Here is what we know. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody [omitted note] and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote – signature verification and witness requirements.”

“Defendant States acted unconstitutionally to lower their election standards – including to allow invalid ballots to be counted and valid ballots to not be counted – with the express intent to favor their candidate for President and to alter the outcome of the 2020 elections. In many instances these actions occurred in areas having a history of election fraud.”

And various sub-headings of the brief submitted by Missouri and 16 other states provide a clear idea of the most blatant frauds: abolishing signature verification, insecure ballot handling, inconsistent statewide standards, excluding bipartisan observers, extending the deadline to receive ballots.[11]

Despite this valiant effort, on December 11 the Supreme Court denied Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint for lack of standing (hence for merely procedural reasons, with no regard to the merits of the case). Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joined, stated instead that the Court had no discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case, like this one, that falls within its original jurisdiction.[12]

Even if the Supreme Court has washed its hands and dismissed the case, the fact remains that Texas and the other supporting states have placed under everybody’s eyes those very electoral frauds that the press, TV channels, academics, bureaucracies, social media, and other power centers, had derided and discredited as irresponsible manoeuvers. In reality, what is irresponsible is not ascertaining the truth, but accepting as true what has not been proven. If Americans still want presidential elections that, in four years, will be worthy of their name, and not fraudulent elections unworthy of a civilized democracy, the time to act is now, both before state courts and within state legislatures. What is at stake is the very future of the United States, which cannot survive with a fraudulent electoral system, in which half of the electors (if not more) have no trust at all.

[1] The transcript of President Trump’s speech at the rally is at https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-speech-campaign-rally-valdosta-georgia-december-5-2020; its video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxOAh32t9Sg.

[2] The transcript of Trump’s speech on December 2 is at https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-on-election-fraud-claims-transcript-december-2; its video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP0ixjE7JIU.

[3] The transcript of the press conference on November 19 is at https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/rudy-giuliani-trump-campaign-press-conference-transcript-november-19-election-fraud-claims; its video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4BufJxxmKE.

[4] See, for example, what Daniel Horowitz wrote at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-new-analysis-shows-biden-winning-nearly-impossible-margins-on-mail-in-ballots-in-pennsylvania and https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/ready-horowitz-republicans-have-a-moral-obligation-to-support-the-pennsylvania-lawsuit-against-universal-mail-in-ballots.

[5] See https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/, and the same observer’s interview by Mark Levin at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkf7udTP9Pg.

[6] The risk of fraud in mail ballots had already been flagged in 2005, at page 35 of the Baker-Carter commission report on federal election reform: https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/1472/file/3b50795b2d0374cbef5c29766256.pdf.

[7] See https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2020/12/01/30-percent-of-dems-think-their-party-cheated-n2580862.

[8] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bo0lB1e_RI, at minutes 13.40, 15.45 and 29.15.

[9] The documentation is available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html.

[10] See https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163052/20201208133328638_TX-v-State-MPI-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf.

[11] See https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf.

[12] See https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf.