2020 US presidential election: the final word

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.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on vk
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print
“The delta vari­ant is like a com­mon cold, but …”: Matteo Bassetti, noto infet­tivol­o­go tele­vi­si­vo: “La vari­ante Delta è come un sem­plice raf­fred­dore ma sono con­tento se si usa per fare ter­ror­is­mo per vac­cinare la gente!” Un medico che sposa la strate­gia del ter­rore deve essere denun­ci­a­to e radi­a­to dall’Albo dei medici. pic.twitter.com/YnPEvv0Mhe — RadioSavana (@RadioSavana) August 3, 2021 Why would one want to get vac­ci­nat­ed against the com­mon cold (which coro­n­avirus­es have caused prob­a­bly since humans exist)? A pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine who states such illog­i­cal­i­ty vio­lates his hip­po­crat­ic oath, and not only. He is respon­si­ble for phys­i­cal harm that vac­ci­na­tion caus­es
What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.

Leave a comment / join the discussion

What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.