PA Senate Majority Policy Committee, Public Hearing on Election Issues, November 25, 2020
PA Senate Majority Policy Committee, Public Hearing on Election Issues, November 25, 2020

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/

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.