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.
Below, we list links to additional information as it comes to our attention:
Lawsuit with regard to Georgia:
General observations as to numerical improba-/-possibilities with regard to official election results: