We have studied – and encourage our readers to study – the lawsuit filed by the state of Texas and supported by 17 other states, highlighting how election regulations in defendant states have been changed both in illegal procedures and towards constitutionally indefensible content. We conclude that there is no logical, and therefore lawful, way in which this lawsuit could be dismissed; any outright dismissal without any guidance for a possible remedy would have to emanate from a resolution that is politically motivated. As politically motivated, we would surmise, as Republican Senator Cornyn’s questioning of Texas’ legal standing, when it is clear that the state and the state’s citizens are affected by the exercise of the powers of a federal government not in effect having been legally elected; member states obviously agreed to being governed by a federal government conditionally, namely under the condition that constitutional rules be followed when selecting such government, at a minimum that basic election integrity/voter verification be ensured, as a safeguard against being lawlessly governed on the highest, the federal level. – We therefore consider our prior election call correct on legal grounds alone and the case closed, no matter what the US Supreme Court ultimately decides.
Legal considerations apart: From the data we have taken note of, we concur with the state of Texas that the probability of the Democratic candidate actually having won the election is minuscule; among the many “red flags”: he significantly underperformed both Obama and H. Clinton essentially everywhere except for those select few Democrat controlled swing state metro areas that he necessarily had to win; he won a record low number of counties; he lost 18 out of the 19 so-called bellwether counties that have historically predicted the outcome of the US presidential election with perfection or near perfection; he lost the states of Ohio and Florida that have historically served as like bellwethers; his opponent, on the other hand, did extraordinarily well on essentially any given metric, from primary performance to significantly expanding his share in large metro areas – except those mentioned above – and notably among minority voters; aso. Considering the entirety of data that has come to our attention, as well as what we have heard in many hours of listening to state legislature hearings on election irregularities, from both Republican and Democrat testifiers, makes it appear clear to us that very significant voting irregularities have indeed occurred.
Possibly the most interesting piece of insight from the hearings we listened in to was the confirmation, under oath, by the Democrat operative responsible for the training of Democrat poll challengers, repeated upon incredulous questions from both the chair and vice-chair of the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee, that Democrat challengers never challenge ballots, just the procedures that might hinder someone to cast a ballot. She affirmed that even in full knowledge that a ballot was cast illegally, Democrat poll challengers would keep silent, based on guidance that had been in place for so long that she could not say when the last time was that a Democrat poll challenger had actually challenged a ballot. Democrat challengers thus admittedly see their sole role in challenging election workers to accept each and every ballot received, no matter if ultimately legal or not. This may more than just indirectly testify to the general attitude dominant in those Democrat controlled counties in which severe voting irregularities have predominantly been alleged, and in which the Democratic candidate allegedly prevailed over his Republican opponent.
Logically, regulations that are only followed in one direction instead of in their entirety are not in effect being followed.
Should the requested relief not be granted, then this would effectively signify the end of the statehood of the United States of America. Without a trustworthy election process, there can be no rule of law, there is no basis for legal governance. Our perception of at least five of the nine members of SCOTUS is that they more likely than not are aware of this. Our, if limited, personal experience in – and with – higher level judiciary makes us confident that logic, of which law is merely a derivative, will prevail in this case.
We may add that our perception of the micro-behavior of the EUR/USD currency pair over recent days seems to indicate a higher probability of a SCOTUS decision in the direction we expect than in the opposite direction, and accordingly a reversal of recent USD weakness, while we are aware that most major banks publicly expect a continuing depreciation of the US dollar going forward. The Euro is up after the ECB decision at the time of this writing, at around 1.2125, so it remains to be seen whether our perception will turn out to be correct.
May we finally add that we are unfazed entirely by dismissals of like challenges by courts below the SCOTUS level, based on our own past experience as plaintiffs. Something of the sort that is at issue in the motion filed by Texas has not happened nor been challenged before. When we sued our bank 20 years ago for damages because it had not forwarded our stock market orders in a timely manner, this was unheard of in Germany. We lost flat-out at the state court level, won in small part at the state appellate court, then won completely at the highest federal civil court. Our case became a precedent. So much for lower court courage in handling unfamiliar matters.
All said, we are comfortable with our overall assessment and curious as to what will transpire.