BREAKING: Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives Joins Texas in Suit Against Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia

The list of states joining Texas continues to increase.

The state of Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on Monday night with the US Supreme Court challenging their unlawful election procedures.

Texas argued these four states violated the US Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions. But these states did not make the changes through the state legislatures as spelled out in the US Constitution.

We reported earlier today that President Trump joined Texas in suing the four states being sued by Texas.

President Trump Files Motion to Join Texas Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia

Last night we reported 18 states have to date joined Texas in their case against the four states:

Arizona Becomes 18th State to Back Texas in Lawsuit Against Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin Over Fraudulent Election

Next we reported that 106 US House Republicans have signed a brief backing Texas in this case (the list should be over 200):

106 House Republicans Sign Brief Backing Texas Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin

Now this afternoon, the Pennsylvania House joined the case:

The number of states and entities joining Texas in their suit against the big four states involved in stealing the 2020 election continues to grow.  This case isn’t bogus or seditious, this case is valid and that is why entities are jumping on the bus.

The post BREAKING: Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives Joins Texas in Suit Against Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

BREAKING: Trump Secures Another Peace Deal Between Israel And An Arab Nation

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that his administration helped secure a fourth peace deal between Israel and an Arab nation. “Morocco is the fourth Arab country to move toward normalization with Israel in the last four months as part of the Trump administration’s ‘Abraham Accords’ initiative,” Axios reported. “The Moroccan decision comes as part of […]

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com/

WALSH: School Board Votes To Take Thomas Jefferson’s Name Off Of School, Gives Truly Insane Reasons To Justify It

On Tuesday, the Falls Church school board in Virginia voted unanimously to change the names of Thomas Jefferson Elementary School and George Mason High School, achieving one of the great feats of bureaucratic cowardice by knocking out the father of the Bill of Rights and the author of the Declaration of Independence all at once.  […]

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com/

Breaking: YouTube Announces New Censorship Rules – Will Take Down Videos Alleging Fraud and Disputing 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Results

YouTube announced Tuesday it will take down videos questioning the integrity of the U.S. presidential election that millions of Americans, most notably President Trump, believe was stolen through numerous fraudulent actions, lawfare chicanery and computer manipulation.

YouTube says it already has been rigging search results and algorithms to hide “misleading” election videos, describing the censorship effort as, “Limiting the reach of borderline content and prominently surfacing authoritative information.” YouTube says that even though the “misleading” videos account for a miniscule part of viewership, “Problematic misinformation represents a fraction of 1% of what’s watched on YouTube in the U.S,” the firm says, “we know we can bring that number down even more.”

YouTube’s move to censor political speech comes as President Trump is threatening to veto the military appropriations bill over the failure of Congress to repeal the Section 230 law that protects Internet platforms like YouTube from being treated like publishers.

Excerpt from the announcement:

Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come. As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific or artistic context.

Complete announcement:

Supporting the 2020 U.S. election

Updates to our work supporting the integrity of the 2020 U.S. election.

Over the past weeks and months, we’ve seen people coming to YouTube to learn more about where and how to vote or learning more about a candidate or an issue. We’ve seen news organizations grow their audience. And we’ve seen people turn to YouTube for the latest election results or simply to follow an historic event with the highest voting turnout in over a century in the U.S.

Our main goal going into the election season was to make sure we’re connecting people with authoritative information, while also limiting the reach of misinformation and removing harmful content. The work here is ongoing and we wanted to provide an update.

Removing content that violates our policies

Our Community Guidelines prohibit spam, scams, or other manipulated media, coordinated influence operations, and any content that seeks to incite violence. Since September, we’ve terminated over 8000 channels and thousands of harmful and misleading elections-related videos for violating our existing policies. Over 77% of those removed videos were taken down before they had 100 views.

We also work to make sure that the line between what is removed and what is allowed is drawn in the right place. Our policies prohibit misleading viewers about where and how to vote. We also disallow content alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election. However in some cases, that has meant allowing controversial views on the outcome or process of counting votes of a current election as election officials have worked to finalize counts.

Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come. As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific or artistic context.

Connecting people to authoritative information

While only a small portion of watch time is election-related content, YouTube continues to be an important source of election news. On average 88% of the videos in top 10 search results related to elections came from authoritative news sources (amongst the rest are things like newsy late-night shows, creator videos and commentary). And the most viewed channels and videos are from news channels like NBC and CBS.

We also showed information panels linking both to Google’s election results feature, which sources election results from The Associated Press, and to the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) “Rumor Control” page for debunking election integrity misinformation, alongside these and over 200,000 other election-related videos. Collectively, these information panels have been shown over 4.5 billion times. Starting today, we will update this information panel, linking to the “2020 Electoral College Results” page from the Office of the Federal Register, noting that as of December 8, states have certified Presidential election results, with Joe Biden as the President-elect. It will also continue to include a link to CISA, explaining that states certify results after ensuring ballots are properly counted and correcting irregularities and errors.

Additionally, since Election Day, relevant fact check information panels, from third party fact checkers, were triggered over 200,000 times above relevant election-related search results, including for voter fraud narratives such as “Dominion voting machines” and “Michigan recount.”

Now let’s look at recommendations, one of the main ways our viewers find content. Limiting the reach of borderline content and prominently surfacing authoritative information are important ways we protect people from problematic content that doesn’t violate our Community Guidelines. Over 70% of recommendations on election-related topics came from authoritative news sources and the top recommended videos and channels for election-related content were primarily authoritative news. In fact, the top 10 authoritative news channels were recommended over 14X more than the top 10 non-authoritative channels on election-related content.

Despite these encouraging results, we recognize there’s always more to do. For example, while problematic misinformation represents a fraction of 1% of what’s watched on YouTube in the U.S., we know we can bring that number down even more. And some videos, while not recommended prominently on YouTube, continue to get high views, sometimes coming from other sites. We’re continuing to consider this and other new challenges as we make ongoing improvements.

We understand the need for intense scrutiny on our elections-related work. Our teams work hard to ensure we are striking a balance between allowing for a broad range of political speech and making sure our platform isn’t abused to incite real-world harm or broadly spread harmful misinformation. We welcome ongoing debate and discussion and will keep engaging with experts, researchers and organizations to ensure that our policies and products are meeting that goal. And as always, we’ll apply learnings from this election to our ongoing efforts to protect the integrity of elections around the world.

The post Breaking: YouTube Announces New Censorship Rules – Will Take Down Videos Alleging Fraud and Disputing 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Results appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Dictionary.com Changed Definition Of ‘Court Packing’ To Conform With Democrat Smear

After President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Democrats began suggesting a potential Joe Biden administration engage in “court packing,” a historical term referring to President Franklin Roosevelt’s failed attempt to increase the number of judges on the Supreme Court.

To combat these allegations and get the heat off of them, Democrats began claiming that Republicans were currently packing the court, changing the definition and gaslighting Americans along the way. As The Daily Wire’s Frank Camp wrote in October, Montana Senate candidate Steve Bullock claimed during a debate against Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) that Republicans were packing the court. Biden himself made a similar statement around the same time, saying, “The only court packing is going on right now—it’s going on with Republicans packing the court now.”

What Democrats were trying to claim was that Republicans were “court packing” by confirming judges to open seats. Republicans have not created any new judicial seats, they are merely confirming Trump’s judicial choices to fill vacant seats.

Democrats wants to change the definition to take the scrutiny off of their members calling on Biden to increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court so that the Left could have more ideological judges on their side since Trump was able to confirm three SCOTUS judges and tip the ideological leanings of the court.

Enter Dictionary.com, which at some point between November 1 and December 1 changed the definition of “court packing” to fit the Democrats’ new, made up definition.

Attorney J.D. Graham noted the updated definition on Twitter, using the Wayback Machine to show that the definition had changed during that time.

On November 1, 2020, Dictionary.com defined “court packing” as “an unsuccessful attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court, which had invalidated a number of his New Deal laws.”

By December 1, the definition was updated to include a second explanation, above the original, which read: “the practice of changing the number or composition of judges on a court, making it more favorable to particular goals or ideologies, and typically involving an increase in the number of seats on the court.”

In response to Graham’s tweet, the official Twitter account of Dictionary.com claimed the definition was changed because “Language evolves. So do we.”

National Republican Senatorial Committee senior advisor Matt Whitlock responded to the updated definition by tweeting:

Dictionary, can you tell me he definition of “Orwellian?” Court packing has meant the same thing for a 60 years. Changing *definitions of words* to fit the political points of bad-faith lunatics is an absolute TERRIBLE precedent.

It is not the first time a well-known dictionary has changed the definition of words on a whim. In October, Merriam-Webster changed the definition of “preference” after Democrats claimed Judge Coney Barrett was transphobic for using the decades-old phrase “sexual preference.” Though it was not commonly known to most people as a slur, Democrats – some of whom had used the term themselves, such as Biden and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) – began claiming it was an offensive and bigoted term. Merriam-Webster obliged by changing the definition to fit Democrat’s sudden attack on a conservative.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Carlson: Rep. Swalwell Remains on House Intelligence Committee Despite Alleged Relationship with Chinese Spy

Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson addressed the bombshell report that claimed a Chinese spy named Fang Fang had relationships with powerful Democratic Party figures, including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Carlson questioned Swalwell continuing to serve as a member of the House Intelligence Committee despite the alleged relationship and noted the California Democrat’s insistence President Donald Trump had been a compromised agent of Russia throughout his presidency.

CARLSON: The defining characteristic of our ruling class in this country is narcissism. The people in charge talk almost exclusively about themselves, about their limitless neuroses, their so-called privilege, their guilt about that privilege, their identity.

No matter what they’re saying, it is always all about them. And like most self-centered people, they have no perspective on the rest of the world. If you listen to our strictly moderated national conversation, you would think the single greatest crisis this country faces is the passing of a convicted felon from Minneapolis called George Floyd. That’s our main challenge. They literally told us that for months.

So America’s frame of reference has shrunk to the point that we can only see ourselves, and of course, the rest of the world knows that, they’ve been watching carefully, especially China.

China knows that our self-involvement is their opportunity. While our elites have been busy lecturing us about white fragility and trans rights, the Chinese government has remained deadly serious.

Chinese leaders aren’t frivolous and stupid like our leaders are. They don’t care what pronouns you use, they don’t hire people because of the way they look. They have a goal, a very specific goal. They’re highly focused on it. That goal is knocking us from our perch. That goal is winning, and they are.

Over the past decade, China has made stunning progress in its attempt to dethrone the United States from its position of global leadership, our position.

China’s economy will soon surpass ours in size, and at some point, so will its military strength. To accelerate this, the Chinese Communist Party has engaged in a ceaseless effort to subvert our leadership class, the people who run the United States, and that has worked more effectively than anyone imagined.

Last night, we showed you proof. We played a clip of a Chinese Professor speaking on camera in front of a live audience, explaining how deeply his country’s intelligence services have penetrated our government and our business establishments.

This video was recorded just over a week ago. Watch the subtitles at the bottom of the screen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DI DONGSHENG, VICE DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AT RENMIN UNIVERSITY (TEXT): Why between 1992 and 2016 did China and the U.S. used to be able to settle all kinds of issues? It’s just because we have people at the top.

At the top of America’s core inner circle of power and influence, we have our old friends.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: We have people at the top — at the top of America’s core inner circle of power and influence. Well, of course, that means the government, it means Wall Street. It also means the media and the tech companies that distribute the media’s products. And that may be why you didn’t hear anything about this video elsewhere on television today.

CNN claims to be an international network, they ignored it. So did MSNBC and the broadcast networks, not a word about it. So much for their purported concern about foreign interference in our democracy.

When China interferes, it’s not a story, they don’t care. That may be why so many news outlets ignored another blockbuster story about China, one that broke just today. This story comes from AXIOS in Washington, which is no one’s idea of a right-wing news outlet.

But to their great credit, a pair of AXIOS reporters doggedly spent the last year investigating what turned out to be an amazing story. A Chinese intelligence agent called Fang Fang or she renamed herself when she came to this country, Christine Fang, became a force within the Democratic Party of California.

Along the way, she cultivated a number of Democratic officeholders. Fang had sexual relationships with at least two of them identified in the AXIOS story as mayors from Midwestern cities.

Fang also began a relationship with a man called Eric Swalwell. You may recognize that name. Eric Swalwell, is a member of the United States Congress. Swalwell sits on the House Intelligence Committee. He is privy to this country’s most closely held secrets.

Fang’s relationship with Swalwell began in 2012. Like so many Chinese spies, Fang used college as her cover. She enrolled as a student at a university in the Bay Area, and she immediately joined a number of left-wing identity politics organizations on campus.

From there, she quite naturally began raising money for Democratic candidates. U.S. intelligence officials believe that Fang had a sexual relationship with Eric Swalwell. We asked Swalwell’s office about that directly today. His staff replied by saying they couldn’t comment on whether or not Swalwell had a sexual relationship with Fang because that information might be quote, “classified.”

They did not elaborate or explain what they meant by that.

We do know that when Fang met Swalwell, he was a little known city councilman in the Bay Area, but he had grand political aspirations. Fung became his regular companion.

She was photographed with Swalwell at political events several times. She became a financial bundler for his political campaigns. Fang apparently pulled in large amounts of money from a variety of sources to help Eric Swalwell get elected to Congress.

It’s not entirely clear where all of that money came from. We do know that Fang helped Swalwell secure the support of his district’s Asian-American community. Political analysts have called that a critical factor in his win in 2012. That’s not a new trick for Chinese intelligence services.

Another Democrat from the State of California, the state senior Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein, employed a Chinese spy in her office for nearly 20 years. That spy drove Feinstein around and directly assisted her in outreach to Asian-American voters.

Like the spy that Feinstein hired, Fang gained access to Eric Swalwell’s office in Washington. U.S. officials say Fang managed to install an intern in Swalwell’s office almost certainly as a spy for the Chinese government.

Now, we don’t know the full extent of Fang’s intelligence activities in this country. Eventually, she fled the U.S. for China while under F.B.I. investigation. Swalwell claims he hasn’t talked to her in years.

We do know that in Eric Swalwell, the Chinese government picked a promising vehicle. Swalwell is one of the most high profile members of Congress. Last year, he ran for President of the United States.

At every turn, Eric Swalwell has remained a reliable source of Chinese government propaganda. As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, he styled himself as an expert at spotting foreign interference in our government, remarkably.

As you may remember, Swalwell spent years accusing the sitting President of working for a hostile power.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): The question has shifted from whether the President is working with the Russians to what evidence exists that the President is not working with the Russians.

He has betrayed our country, and I don’t — I don’t say that lightly. I worked as a prosecutor for seven years. And I —

QUESTION: Betraying the country by the way, we want evidence before you say that, but you said an agent of Russia.

SWALWELL: Yes. He works on their behalf.

MACCALLUM: Do you still believe that the President is a Russian agent?

SWALWELL: I think he acts on Russia’s behalf and he puts Russia’s interests ahead too often of America’s interest.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, FORMER MSNBC HOST: You’re a member of Judiciary, do you believe the President right now has been an agent of the Russians?

SWALWELL: Yes. I think there’s more evidence that he is.

MATTHEWS: Agent?

SWALWELL: Yes. And I think all the arrows point in that direction. I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence that he is not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Looking back, it’s hard to watch that tape. The irony is overwhelming. It’s always those who have the most to hide who attack other people for the very things they’ve done — always.

Even at the time, he was saying that, it was very obvious to us that something was very wrong with Eric Swalwell. So two years ago, we asked Swalwell to come on this show and reveal the evidence he claimed he had collected on Russian collusion.

Swalwell came, he couldn’t turn down a TV opportunity. He made loud noises and he left. He had no evidence. But he didn’t stop making allegations.

Here he is at a hearing with Jim Comey back in 2017.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SWALWELL: I want to talk about the Kremlin playbook, and there are a number of ways that a foreign adversary could seek to influence a person. Do you agree with that?

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Yes.

SWALWELL: Financial?

COMEY: Yes. That can be one.

SWALWELL: Romance you said as another?

COMEY: Yes.

SWALWELL: Compromise?

COMEY: Correct.

SWALWELL: Setting up a compromise.

COMEY: Sure, if to execute on a compromise, yes.

SWALWELL: How about inadvertently capturing a compromise? Meaning they have vast surveillance and you stumble into that surveillance and are caught in a compromise?

COMEY: And then they take that information, try and use it to coerce you? Yes, that’s part of the playbook.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Oh, it’s part of the playbook. Part of the Kremlin playbook, Eric Swalwell says. So what they do, these foreign Intel services, is they use sex, a honey trap, if you will, to set up a compromise. Spoken like a man who knows that subject quite well.

When the Russia hoax subsided as it inevitably did, because it was a lie, Swalwell turned his energies to his first love, which is defending the government of China from all criticism.

In March, Swalwell told the rest of us that we are racist if we describe where the coronavirus came from originally, he said this on Twitter, quote, “When lawmakers refer to COVID-19 as a Chinese virus, they are not only misleading the public about a disease with confirmed cases in over a hundred countries. They are stoking racism and xenophobia in our communities. Diseases don’t have an ethnicity. Period.”

So if you’re bored sometime, take those words and type them into Google and you will find analogs almost precisely to the word in Chinese state media. That’s what he was repeating.

If you ask Eric Swalwell, blaming the Chinese government for the coronavirus was a mistake, the right approach is to defer to the Chinese government as much as you possibly can.

In 2017, Swalwell expressed outrage that the Trump administration was taking too tough a position with China’s ally, North Korea. He wrote this, quote, “The President’s reckless and inconsistent North Korea strategy risks American lives.” Instead, Swalwell demanded, Trump must, quote, “Talk to experts, allies, and China.”

Swalwell had been saying similar things for years. In 2013, for example, he demanded that we quote, “Engage China and Russia to keep Iran nuclear-free.” Do you notice a pattern here? Of course, you do.

And yet, here is the amazing thing, as of tonight, with all this information public, Eric Swalwell, who has used his office to promote Beijing’s talking points, almost word for word, ones that matter, by the way, a man who admits to a close personal relationship with an actual Chinese spy who helped him get elected to Congress, raised money for him and put an intern probably another spy in his office, that man continues to serve on the House Intelligence Committee, where he has unrestricted access to classified information.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

The Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court is huge


On Tuesday, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The suit alleged that, because these states conducted elections that violated their own laws, they tainted the integrity of the vote, something that damaged not only their own citizens but also the citizens in other states. Because this is an intelligent, powerful case, it’s no surprise that eight other states have already joined the litigation.

To date, we’ve seen a multiplicity of lawsuits filed although, significantly, none has come before the Supreme Court for substantive review. Courts in various states, however, have proven resistant to these suits.

As I noted here, partisan judges are issuing what I will politely call “garbage” decisions. Judges are refusing to consider the evidence, with only one Nevada court attempting to do so. Instead, they make variations of the argument that, if courts were to consider Trump’s claims, they would run the risk of “disenfranchising” Biden voters.

That is a singularly dishonest argument. Disenfranchisement occurs when people are deprived of the right to vote. No one was deprived here. What Trump is doing, with his request that every legal vote count, is asking that courts invalidate illegal votes. You cannot disenfranchise an illegal voter, whether that “voter” is dead, a computer algorithm, or a form filled out in a Chinese print shop.

Do you know what happens when you invalidate fraudulent votes and count only legal votes? You identify the winner and loser in an election, as has happened in America since 1792. Those who voted for the losing candidate were not disenfranchised; they just voted for the losing candidate.

The Texas lawsuit argues that the four defendant states changed their mail-in voting rules without going through the constitutional, legislative process. By doing so, they assured illegal mail-in votes, meaning all votes under the new “rules” were illegal from the get-go. These invalid votes override the will of those who legitimately cast votes, tainting the national election.

After all, we are a federation of states. While the individual states control their own election rules, each state is affected by the election outcomes in the other states. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s statement about the lawsuit perfectly sums up the correct legal standard:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”  

Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution. The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.  

Because this is a suit between states, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. It’s also a factually pure case, that does not require looking at the reams of evidence demonstrating fraud.

If you want a good overview about why the case is really huge, Jay Sekulow, one of America’s most brilliant constitutional lawyers, and his team at the American Center for Law and Justice explain both the procedure and the substance:

(Here’s more about the role the House of Representatives could play. Also, you can see the lawsuit here.)

No wonder it appears that eight other states have joined the case (Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina). The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the Supreme Court justices are willing to show the necessary courage to ensure that the will of the people, and not the will of the corruptocrats, prevail in this election.

Image: Ken Paxton on Sean Hannity. YouTube screengrab.

On Tuesday, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The suit alleged that, because these states conducted elections that violated their own laws, they tainted the integrity of the vote, something that damaged not only their own citizens but also the citizens in other states. Because this is an intelligent, powerful case, it’s no surprise that eight other states have already joined the litigation.

To date, we’ve seen a multiplicity of lawsuits filed although, significantly, none has come before the Supreme Court for substantive review. Courts in various states, however, have proven resistant to these suits.

As I noted here, partisan judges are issuing what I will politely call “garbage” decisions. Judges are refusing to consider the evidence, with only one Nevada court attempting to do so. Instead, they make variations of the argument that, if courts were to consider Trump’s claims, they would run the risk of “disenfranchising” Biden voters.

That is a singularly dishonest argument. Disenfranchisement occurs when people are deprived of the right to vote. No one was deprived here. What Trump is doing, with his request that every legal vote count, is asking that courts invalidate illegal votes. You cannot disenfranchise an illegal voter, whether that “voter” is dead, a computer algorithm, or a form filled out in a Chinese print shop.

Do you know what happens when you invalidate fraudulent votes and count only legal votes? You identify the winner and loser in an election, as has happened in America since 1792. Those who voted for the losing candidate were not disenfranchised; they just voted for the losing candidate.

The Texas lawsuit argues that the four defendant states changed their mail-in voting rules without going through the constitutional, legislative process. By doing so, they assured illegal mail-in votes, meaning all votes under the new “rules” were illegal from the get-go. These invalid votes override the will of those who legitimately cast votes, tainting the national election.

After all, we are a federation of states. While the individual states control their own election rules, each state is affected by the election outcomes in the other states. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s statement about the lawsuit perfectly sums up the correct legal standard:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”  

Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution. The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.  

Because this is a suit between states, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. It’s also a factually pure case, that does not require looking at the reams of evidence demonstrating fraud.

If you want a good overview about why the case is really huge, Jay Sekulow, one of America’s most brilliant constitutional lawyers, and his team at the American Center for Law and Justice explain both the procedure and the substance:

(Here’s more about the role the House of Representatives could play. Also, you can see the lawsuit here.)

No wonder it appears that eight other states have joined the case (Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina). The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the Supreme Court justices are willing to show the necessary courage to ensure that the will of the people, and not the will of the corruptocrats, prevail in this election.

Image: Ken Paxton on Sean Hannity. YouTube screengrab.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/