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.