loico is now calling the 2020 US presidential election for the Republican nominee

The “trad­ing action” observ­able to any expe­ri­enced trad­er in finan­cial mar­kets con­tin­ues to be most­ly con­gru­ent with the “max­i­mal uncer­tain­ty” that we recent­ly estab­lished, if in hind- rather than fore­sight, in the “Blogic” sec­tion of this site as the state gov­ern­ing the post-elec­tion sit­u­a­tion. We have a hard time remem­ber­ing a peri­od where deci­sive-seem­ing price move­ments have, with no excep­tion that we hap­pened to notice, almost imme­di­ate­ly result­ed com­plete­ly inconsequential.

Below the sur­face, though, the pat­tern in finan­cial mar­ket behav­ior that we had observed dur­ing the first part of the trad­ing ses­sion on November 3, only to be com­plete­ly can­celled out by the end of the same trad­ing day, has begun to re-emerge, though not (yet) to the point where it alone would war­rant the call made in this post’s head­line. As we write this, Forex mar­kets appear to be seri­ous­ly attempt­ing at re-assum­ing some con­se­quence in their trad­ing behav­ior, but half a day more will like­ly have to pass to make an assess­ment with suf­fi­cient confidence.

To still make the call at this point, we can by now lean onto the legal exper­tise present with­in our team. Even though US con­sti­tu­tion­al and elec­tion law is clear­ly dif­fer­ent from German con­sti­tu­tion­al and elec­tion law, and our “US exper­tise” com­pris­es only a few weeks of sum­mer school train­ing in American law almost 30 years ago, there is a uni­ver­sal frame­work where­in lawyers across the globe argue – logic.

To quick­ly cut to the core of the issue(s): To our knowl­edge, the Democrat side has not sub­stan­tial­ly dis­put­ed the fac­tu­al alle­ga­tions, under­pinned by a sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of indi­vid­ual affi­davits, that Republican poll inspectors/challengers were not allowed to inspect in any mean­ing­ful way rough­ly 700,000 votes cast via mail-in bal­lots in Pennsylvania.

In a sim­i­lar case per­tain­ing to the state of Michigan, the state judge toss­ing out a relat­ed law­suit opined that Republicans were mis­in­ter­pret­ing the law when they claimed that there had to be a Republican poll watch­er giv­en the oppor­tu­ni­ty to watch the count at every count­ing “table”, where­as, in this judge’s opin­ion, “the plain lan­guage of the statute requires there be elec­tion inspec­tors at the TCF Center facil­i­ty, the site of the absen­tee count­ing effort”, in oth­er words, that it was enough that one Republican rep­re­sen­ta­tive was present in the “room” instead of at every “table”.

Now, the law uses nei­ther “site”, nor “room”, nor “table”, but rather the word “place”. Which can the­o­ret­i­cal­ly mean a great many things, yet lawyers are taught to inter­pret a legal pro­vi­sion accord­ing to its appar­ent intent, which in this case is to ensure elec­tion integri­ty. A sin­gle Republican observ­er in a “room” or at a “site” with 100 or more count­ing tables would not guar­an­tee a fair vote count­ing process, giv­en that once mail-in bal­lots are sep­a­rat­ed from the con­tain­ing envelopes, there is no way to ver­i­fy whether the bal­lots were legal­ly cast or not. “Place” can there­fore mean “table”, “floor”, or wher­ev­er actu­al indi­vid­ual count­ing is tak­ing place and can be observed. The deter­mi­nate lan­guage of the statute, accord­ing to which a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of each major polit­i­cal par­ty “must” be present at the count­ing “place”, and the utter sense­less­ness of hav­ing some­one “in the room” or “at the site” who is not able to ver­i­fy essen­tial­ly any­thing, make it clear that this low­er state court judge hand­ed down a legal­ly inde­fen­si­ble decision.

Given the pur­port­ed dis­tri­b­u­tion of the rough­ly 700,000 bal­lots in ques­tion, the obvi­ous rem­e­dy of inval­i­dat­ing the respec­tive votes would see the Republican nom­i­nee emerge vic­to­ri­ous in Pennsylvania with its 20 elec­toral votes.

In the sep­a­rate claim of equal pro­tec­tion vio­la­tion with regard to bal­lot “cur­ing” hav­ing been out­right “pushed” in sev­er­al heav­i­ly Democrat lean­ing Pennsylvania coun­ties while not being allowed else­where, a fed­er­al, Obama-appoint­ed judge has opined that the plain­tiff did not sue the right defen­dant because it was his “Republican” coun­ty who reject­ed his vote, not the Secretary of the Commonwealth who encour­aged the, in real­i­ty, selec­tive bal­lot cur­ing. How some­one trained in law would out­right refuse to acknowl­edge the dif­fer­ence between chal­leng­ing a spe­cif­ic treat­ment and chal­leng­ing unequal treat­ment before the law is beyond us, and, frankly, beyond words.

Given yesterday’s hear­ing by the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committee in which some of the avail­able evi­dence was detailed con­vinc­ing­ly, giv­en our grow­ing per­cep­tion that the Democrat side, with regard to Pennsylvania as well as to the oth­er cur­rent­ly con­test­ed swing states, per­sis­tent­ly appears to attempt at “inter­pret­ing away” per­ti­nent fac­tu­al alle­ga­tions with legal­ly and log­i­cal­ly unsus­tain­able argu­ments, and giv­en our per­cep­tion of the qual­i­ty and integri­ty of the major­i­ty of the cur­rent SCOTUS jus­tices who are like­ly to ulti­mate­ly have to decide the out­come of the elec­tion, we now see a con­tin­u­a­tion of the Republican pres­i­den­cy as the most prob­a­ble out­come of the 2020 US pres­i­den­tial election.

Update:

Below, we list links to addi­tion­al infor­ma­tion as it comes to our attention:

Lawsuit with regard to Georgia:

https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf

Nevada:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/27/nevada-district-has-13k-jump-in-voter-files-missin/

Pennsylvania:

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20190&cosponId=32628

General obser­va­tions as to numer­i­cal impro­ba-/-pos­si­bil­i­ties with regard to offi­cial elec­tion results:

https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/