Monthly Archives: November 2020

WAKE UP, STAND UP. SPEAK UP AND ACT UP!

For years Alex Jones has been portrayed by the globalist, corporate controlled CIA mockingbird media (Satan’s lying mouthpiece) as a “conspiracy theorist”. They were very effective at this. But guess what? Alex has been vindicated many times over with this COVID scam-demic! I remember when he released his very powerful documentary called “End Game: Blueprint for Global Enslavement” some 14 years ago, in which he shows how the globalist planned to use a virus related “crisis” (that THEY invented & released; to then bring in MEDICAL TYRANNY on a global scale!

Well, unless you’re just totally stupid and brain dead, or you foolishly continue to believe the lie that what is happening is about “health and safety” when it is in fact about CONTROL AND ENSLAVEMENT, you can no longer falsely accuse Alex Jones of being a “conspiracy theorist”. This isn’t about defending him.

It’s about: WAKE UP, STAND UP. SPEAK UP AND ACT UP!

Time to come out of your matrix trance and get real! Because the globalists are coming for YOU AND YOUR FAMILY!

Thomas Jefferson put it best: “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

Source Alex Jones: https://banned.video/watch?id=5fbdb4c1227d214bb5c89c11

h/t: FLAAgent12

Sidney Powell Clarifies Trump Legal Team Statement

This tweet has sparked the controversy.

Rudy Giuliani, the lead attorney for President Trump’s election challenges, and Trump Campaign Senior Legal Adviser Jenna Ellis said Sunday that high-profile attorney Sidney Powell does not work for the president personally or for his campaign.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/rudy-giuliani-jenna-ellis-statement-says-sidney-powell-not-part-trump

Here is the explanation from Sidney Powell.

I agree with the campaign’s statement that I am not part of the campaign’s legal team. I never signed a retainer agreement or sent the President or the campaign a bill for my expenses or fees. 
 
 My intent has always been to expose all the fraud I could find and let the chips fall where they may–whether it be upon Republicans or Democrats. 
 
The evidence I’m compiling is overwhelming that this software tool was used to shift millions of votes from President Trump and other Republican candidates to Biden and other Democrat candidates.  We are proceeding to prepare our lawsuit and plan to file it this week.  It will be epic. 
 
We will not allow this great Republic to be stolen by communists from without and within or our votes altered or manipulated by foreign actors in Hong Kong, Iran, Venezuela, or Serbia, for example, who have neither regard for human life nor the people who are the engine of this exceptional country. 
 
 #WeThePeople elected Donald Trump and other Republican candidates to restore the vision of America as a place of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   
 
 You may assist this effort by making a non tax-deductible contribution to www.DefendingTheRepublic.org.  #KrakenOnSteroids”
 
Sidney Powell

Image: GettyImages-1229684243

Antifa Leader Unmasked

And look whom he is with…

ANTIFA LEADER UNMASKED: The Leader of Antifa has been exposed! His name: Joseph “Jose” Alcoff You know what to do! ECHO and let the world see him. Make him recognizable to everyone! #AntifaUnmasked #DomesticTerrorists

— John Cremeans JohnCremeans Saturday, July 13, 2019

His name: Joseph “Jose” Alcoff
You know what to do! ECHO and let the world see him. Make him recognizable to everyone! #AntifaUnmasked #DomesticTerrorists #endracialsupramacy

https://parler.com/post/b60d6a5d10e44d0b96933d327f206007

Acting defense secretary orders top special ops civilian to report directly to him

By COREY DICKSTEIN | STARS AND STRIPES Published: November 18, 2020

WASHINGTON — Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller on Wednesday ordered the Pentagon’s top civilian overseeing the military’s special operations community to report directly to him, effectively elevating U.S. Special Operations Command to the same level of the Pentagon’s military departments.

The change makes the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflict a service secretary-like position responsible for the oversight and advocacy of the military’s special operations forces, said Miller, who is expected to serve in the Defense Department’s top job only about two months.

Miller announced the move during a visit to the Army’s special operations home at Fort Bragg, N.C., his first official visit as defense secretary since he took the job Nov. 9 as former Defense Secretary Mark Esper was fired by President Donald Trump via Twitter.

“This reform will immediately improve agility to the department and the command and will enable us to streamline the information flow, enhance decision-making and more adaptively and adeptly support our commanders and their superb soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines,” Miller said in brief, prepared comments.ADVERTISING

Miller said he would prefer to raise the top special operations civilian post to an undersecretary of defense title, but he also said he lacked the authority to do so. Before Wednesday, the person filling that role reported to the defense secretary through the undersecretary of defense for policy, the de facto No. 3 civilian in the Pentagon.

Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a former aide to Trump’s first national security adviser Michael Flynn, is now filling the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflict role on an acting basis. Miller briefly served in that position on a temporary basis earlier this year, as well.

The move on Wednesday aligns the Pentagon with the congressional intent for the top special operations civilian. In the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, lawmakers ordered the Pentagon to raise the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflict to a service secretary-like job and report directly to the defense secretary “for issues impacting the readiness and organization of special operations forces, special operations-peculiar resources and equipment, and civilian personnel management.”

Congress urged the Pentagon to speed up the elevation of the position in its fiscal year 2020 NDAA, the annual law that sets Pentagon policy and spending priorities. Esper told Congress last year that the Defense Department was making progress on the ordered changes.

Miller is a longtime veteran of the special operations community who retired from the Army in 2014 as a colonel. Miller, who was a Green Beret, spent much of his career in the Army’s 5th Special Force Group, commanding a company and a battalion. He fought in Afghanistan and Iraq as a Green Beret, participating in the initial invasions of both of those countries in 2001 and 2003, respectively.

The policy change comes one day after Miller announce the first major shift for the military under his watch — the hastened withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Miller announced Tuesday that the United States would remove about half its troops from Afghanistan and about 500 from Iraq by Jan. 15, just five days before President-elect Joe Biden is to be sworn into office. Biden will take over responsibility for those war efforts with 2,500 troops left in Afghanistan and 2,500 troops left in Iraq.

The acting defense secretary said Wednesday that drawing down operations in those nations will allow special operations forces to refocus on their roles in a potential fight with a major power such as China or Russia.

“Right now we start the transition to provide greater civilian oversight of, and critically, advocacy for our special operators,” Miller said. “This couldn’t come at a more critical moment in time, as we bring our nation’s longest conflicts to a responsible end and prepare special operations forces for this new era of great-power competition.”

dickstein.corey@stripes.com
Twitter: @CDicksteinDC

BOMBSHELL: The 2020 election took place under a Trump-declared “National Emergency” that set an Election Day trap for the “unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure”

From our friends at NaturalNews.

(Natural News) We have another major bombshell for you here, regarding the 2020 election. Despite the intense, malicious censorship of Big Tech, we’re really becoming known for in-depth analysis and research of current events, so thank you for your support as we continue to fight for the very survival of America, our constitutional republic.

This story begins with the little-known executive order signed into existence on September 12, 2018, by President Donald J. Trump. That order, from Whitehouse.gov, is entitled, “Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.”, can be seen here.

In that executive order, which almost no one has covered since the day it was signed, President Trump declares a national emergency. That emergency is still in play to this day, and the 2020 election was conducted under this state of emergency, which is a crucial point to understand what’s coming next.

“Unauthorized accessing of election infrastructure”

In the EO, the President also states that people and organizations located, in part, outside the United States are known to be able to, “interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation.”

If you’re starting to see how this ties in to CNN, the NY Times, the Washington Post and MSNBC, you’re not alone. All those organizations, as you’ll soon see, have been caught under this emergency declaration of “foreign interference” in U.S. elections, aided by complicit corporations on U.S. soil.

The EO further states that this foreign interference in U.S. elections, “constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Why is this relevant to anything we’re seeing right now with the massive election fraud carried out by the Democrats and the deep state? Because Dominion Voting Systems is a Canadian company. And Scytl is run out of Spain.

That’s right. Dominion is a foreign-owned company, which makes Dominion-based election theft a “foreign interference issue.”

Scytl, by the way, is connected to George Soros and the Democrats, and according to TGP (see below), “Bill Gates also own stock in Scytl.”

Dominion is Canadian, Scytl is from Spain; both represent “foreign interference” in US elections… with data routed through servers in Germany

Another voting machine company called Scytl — also widely used in US elections — is located in Spain. As Great Game India reports:

Days after it was revealed how 2020 US Elections were rigged by Canadian Crown Agent Dominion Voting Systems through a so-called “glitch”, now GreatGameIndia has found involvement of another dubious foreign company in US Election meddling. The votes cast by Americans were counted by a bankrupted Spanish company Scytl in Spain. Like Dominion Voting Systems, Scytl has a long history of election fraud in various nations including injecting backdoors in its election software. The issue has prompted experts to question why the sensitive job of counting votes was outsourced to a foreign company? How could a bankrupted Spanish company count American votes in Spain? Due to such widespread fraud, the Chairman of the US Federal Election Commission Trey Trainor believes that the 2020 US Presidential Elections is illegitimate.

What people are missing in all this is that Trump’s 2018 executive order gives the DOJ the power to seize all assets of individuals and companies that were complicit in aiding or covering up this foreign interference in U.S. elections.

See more at NaturalNews.

Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election

This Executive Order (EO) was issued by President Donald J. Trump on 12 SEP 2018.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Although there has been no evidence of a foreign power altering the outcome or vote tabulation in any United States election, foreign powers have historically sought to exploit America’s free and open political system. In recent years, the proliferation of digital devices and internet-based communications has created significant vulnerabilities and magnified the scope and intensity of the threat of foreign interference, as illustrated in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with this threat.

Accordingly, I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election. The assessment shall identify, to the maximum extent ascertainable, the nature of any foreign interference and any methods employed to execute it, the persons involved, and the foreign government or governments that authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported it. The Director of National Intelligence shall deliver this assessment and appropriate supporting information to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(b) Within 45 days of receiving the assessment and information described in section 1(a) of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies and, as appropriate, State and local officials, shall deliver to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense a report evaluating, with respect to the United States election that is the subject of the assessment described in section 1(a):

(i) the extent to which any foreign interference that targeted election infrastructure materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, the tabulation of votes, or the timely transmission of election results; and

(ii) if any foreign interference involved activities targeting the infrastructure of, or pertaining to, a political organization, campaign, or candidate, the extent to which such activities materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, including by unauthorized access to, disclosure or threatened disclosure of, or alteration or falsification of, information or data.

The report shall identify any material issues of fact with respect to these matters that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are unable to evaluate or reach agreement on at the time the report is submitted. The report shall also include updates and recommendations, when appropriate, regarding remedial actions to be taken by the United States Government, other than the sanctions described in sections 2 and 3 of this order.

(c) Heads of all relevant agencies shall transmit to the Director of National Intelligence any information relevant to the execution of the Director’s duties pursuant to this order, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. If relevant information emerges after the submission of the report mandated by section 1(a) of this order, the Director, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies, shall amend the report, as appropriate, and the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall amend the report required by section 1(b), as appropriate.

(d) Nothing in this order shall prevent the head of any agency or any other appropriate official from tendering to the President, at any time through an appropriate channel, any analysis, information, assessment, or evaluation of foreign interference in a United States election.

(e) If information indicating that foreign interference in a State, tribal, or local election within the United States has occurred is identified, it may be included, as appropriate, in the assessment mandated by section 1(a) of this order or in the report mandated by section 1(b) of this order, or submitted to the President in an independent report.

(f) Not later than 30 days following the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall develop a framework for the process that will be used to carry out their respective responsibilities pursuant to this order. The framework, which may be classified in whole or in part, shall focus on ensuring that agencies fulfill their responsibilities pursuant to this order in a manner that maintains methodological consistency; protects law enforcement or other sensitive information and intelligence sources and methods; maintains an appropriate separation between intelligence functions and policy and legal judgments; ensures that efforts to protect electoral processes and institutions are insulated from political bias; and respects the principles of free speech and open debate.

Sec. 2. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security:

(i) to have directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in a United States election;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, as amended by Executive Order 13757 of December 28, 2016, remains in effect. This order is not intended to, and does not, serve to limit the Secretary of the Treasury’s discretion to exercise the authorities provided in Executive Order 13694. Where appropriate, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, may exercise the authorities described in Executive Order 13694 or other authorities in conjunction with the Secretary of the Treasury’s exercise of authorities provided in this order.

(c) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.

Sec. 3. Following the transmission of the assessment mandated by section 1(a) and the report mandated by section 1(b):

(a) the Secretary of the Treasury shall review the assessment mandated by section 1(a) and the report mandated by section 1(b), and, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, impose all appropriate sanctions pursuant to section 2(a) of this order and any appropriate sanctions described in section 2(b) of this order; and

(b) the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate agencies, shall jointly prepare a recommendation for the President as to whether additional sanctions against foreign persons may be appropriate in response to the identified foreign interference and in light of the evaluation in the report mandated by section 1(b) of this order, including, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, proposed sanctions with respect to the largest business entities licensed or domiciled in a country whose government authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported election interference, including at least one entity from each of the following sectors: financial services, defense, energy, technology, and transportation (or, if inapplicable to that country’s largest business entities, sectors of comparable strategic significance to that foreign government). The recommendation shall include an assessment of the effect of the recommended sanctions on the economic and national security interests of the United States and its allies. Any recommended sanctions shall be appropriately calibrated to the scope of the foreign interference identified, and may include one or more of the following with respect to each targeted foreign person:

(i) blocking and prohibiting all transactions in a person’s property and interests in property subject to United States jurisdiction;

(ii) export license restrictions under any statute or regulation that requires the prior review and approval of the United States Government as a condition for the export or re-export of goods or services;

(iii) prohibitions on United States financial institutions making loans or providing credit to a person;

(iv) restrictions on transactions in foreign exchange in which a person has any interest;

(v) prohibitions on transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions, or by, through, or to any financial institution, for the benefit of a person;

(vi) prohibitions on United States persons investing in or purchasing equity or debt of a person;

(vii) exclusion of a person’s alien corporate officers from the United States;

(viii) imposition on a person’s alien principal executive officers of any of the sanctions described in this section; or

(ix) any other measures authorized by law.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 2 of this order.

Sec. 5. The prohibitions in section 2 of this order include the following:

(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 6. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Sec. 7. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person (including a foreign person) in the United States;

(d) the term “election infrastructure” means information and communications technology and systems used by or on behalf of the Federal Government or a State or local government in managing the election process, including voter registration databases, voting machines, voting tabulation equipment, and equipment for the secure transmission of election results;

(e) the term “United States election” means any election for Federal office held on, or after, the date of this order;

(f) the term “foreign interference,” with respect to an election, includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful actions or attempted actions of a foreign government, or of any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, undertaken with the purpose or effect of influencing, undermining confidence in, or altering the result or reported result of, the election, or undermining public confidence in election processes or institutions;

(g) the term “foreign government” means any national, state, provincial, or other governing authority, any political party, or any official of any governing authority or political party, in each case of a country other than the United States;

(h) the term “covert,” with respect to an action or attempted action, means characterized by an intent or apparent intent that the role of a foreign government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly; and

(i) the term “State” means the several States or any of the territories, dependencies, or possessions of the United States.

Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 2 of this order.

Sec. 10. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.

Sec. 11. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may re-delegate any of these functions to other officers within the Department of the Treasury consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 12. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

Sec. 13. This order shall be implemented consistent with 50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1) and (3).

Sec. 14. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 12, 2018.

Q&A for State Legislators and Citizens—The Constitution and How to Settle the Election

Rob Natelson November 15, 2020 Updated: November 15, 2020 Print

Commentary

Irregularities in the presidential election returns of six states have sparked the question “What next?” The states are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Should their state legislatures intervene? Confusing the issue are media and other claims that are dead wrong.

This column corrects the mistakes and clarifies duties and options.

Why the mistakes? Many in the media are strongly motivated to secure the election of Joe Biden—or, more accurately, the defeat of Donald Trump. They have been uncurious about alleged election irregularities or how the Constitution and federal law address presidential election deadlocks.

Even most experts are unfamiliar with this subject. On average, law school constitutional law courses spend two-thirds of their time on 2 percent of the Constitution (the First Amendment and two sections of the 14th) and largely ignore the presidential election process. Even most law professors are unaware of the Constitution’s presidential election rules or the history behind them.

Now, some questions and answers:

Q: Why are state legislatures involved?

A: You don’t learn this in school, but the Founders put the state legislatures near the heart of the political system. So much so that during the public debates over ratification of the Constitution, one of the most popular pro-Constitution writers (Tench Coxe) affirmed (pdf) that once the Constitution was ratified, ultimate sovereignty would lodge in a combination of state legislatures and state conventions.

Q: How is that relevant to presidential elections?

A: The Constitution gives state legislatures power to determine how electors are appointed. This power was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this year in Chiafolo v. Washington (pdf). The Court held that state legislatures not only control choice of electors but can also even direct them how to vote.

Q: Are there roles for Congress in the presidential election system?

A: Yes. One is that the Constitution’s Same Day Clause or Presidential Vote Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 4) authorizes Congress to select a uniform national day for voting by presidential electors and a (necessarily uniform) national time for voting for president electors. Congress has responded with legislation whose current version was enacted in 1948: Dec. 14 for voting by electors (3 U.S. Code §7) and Nov. 3 for voting for electors (id., §1).

Q: But this year many people voted by mail and the balloting continued over weeks …

A: Yes, and that was a violation of both the Same Day Clause and federal law. Some of the election irregularities were those the Same Day Clause was adopted to prevent.

Q: So, where does the state legislature come in?

A: Federal law, 3 U.S.C., § 2, recognizes state legislatures’ continuing power to choose electors after Nov. 3 if the election on that date fails. It reads:

“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

Q: Is that relevant to all states this year?

A: No—only to the six states with contested elections. Investigations over the next few weeks may show that preliminary results in some of these states are accurate. Then the law will apply only to states (if any) where the results remain helplessly muddled.

Q: How do lawmakers learn if claims of irregularities are true?

A: They should see how the lawsuits challenging the election unfold in their states over the next few days and weeks. I also recommend that legislative committees hold hearings of their own.

Q: To overturn an election, do you have to show fraud?

A: No. Any irregularities altering the results may be sufficient. These include (1) election officials treating different votes in different ways, in violation of the 14th amendment (Bush v. Gore, pdf), (2) changing election procedures during or after the election—or before the election in a way that confuses voters, and (3) even innocent mistakes, including software or machine errors.

Q: I read an article saying that fraud is sufficient to upend an election, and that there’s no need to show it changed the result. Is this correct?

A: No. A court is unlikely to set an election aside if the results would have been the same anyway.

Q: If a state legislature finds that the results are hopelessly muddled, what should it do?

A: The principal options are (1) call a special election limited to presidential electors only, or (2) choose the electors itself. Some may gripe about a quick election repeat, but successive elections are common in some other democratic countries.

Q: Is it true that only the governor may call the legislature into special session?

A: It’s true in some states. Of course, this is no problem if the governor is cooperative. Some state constitutions allow a petition signed by a certain number of lawmakers to call a special session.

Q: My state’s law says only the people, not the legislature, can choose electors. State law further requires a 60-day notice period before a special election. Doesn’t this prevent our state lawmakers from acting even if federal law would seem to authorize them to do so?

A: No. First, if the legislature can come into session it may—either with gubernatorial cooperation or by a veto-proof majority—change the laws as necessary and allow the people to vote.

Q: What if the governor is not cooperative and there’s no veto-proof majority?

A: Then the legislature may call itself into session and choose the electors itself.

Q: Huh?

A: This is one of those things not taught in law school. Here’s the background:

The Constitution delegates power to federal departments and officials. But it also assigns responsibilities to persons and entities outside the federal government. These persons and entities include state governors, presidential electors, convention delegates, voters, jurors—and state legislatures. The courts refer to the exercise of these responsibilities as “federal functions.” (See my forthcoming article (pdf) on the subject in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law.)

When the Constitution assigns responsibility to the “state legislature,” it may mean either the state’s entire legislative apparatus, including the governor, or the representative assembly standing alone, without the governor.

Q: Go on …

A: The Constitution gives state legislatures power to regulate federal elections. In this case, the delegation is to the entire legislative process including the governor (Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm’n, pdf). But when state legislatures act in the constitutional amendment process or elect functionaries themselves, they act alone, without gubernatorial involvement.

Q: For example?

A: Before the 17th amendment, the state legislatures elected U.S. senators, and the governor had no say in the matter. Choice of presidential electors is almost certainly subject to the same rule. Federal law seems to recognize this when it provides, “Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed … in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” Surely Congress didn’t expect the legislature to go through the entire law-making process in a constricted period of time. It contemplated the legislature choosing the electors itself or setting up an expedited process.

Q: Okay, but if the state constitution says only the governor can call a special session, how can the legislature call itself into session?

A: When a state legislature exercises a “federal function,” its power comes directly from the U.S. Constitution, and it’s not bound by state rules. The judiciary has said this repeatedly. The leading case is the Supreme Court decision in Leser v. Garnett (pdf), written by the celebrated justice Louis Brandeis.

Q: Of the six contested states, all but Nevada have Republican-controlled legislatures. I’ve heard it suggested that they not choose electors at all. That way, neither Trump nor Biden will have 270 electors (a majority of the whole number of 538), forcing a run-off election in the House of Representatives. Although the Democrats will have a slim majority in the new House, the GOP will hold a majority of state delegations. Since presidential voting in the House is by state, it will elect Trump.

A: The suggestion is unwise. First, state lawmakers would, justifiably, take at least as much political heat for simply punting as for calling a new election or choosing the electors.

Second, the 12th amendment says that only if no presidential candidate receives “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” does the election go to the House. If none of the five contested states with Republican legislatures appoints electors, then there will be only 465 “Electors appointed.” If, as is almost certain, Nevada goes for Biden, then that would give him 233 votes—a majority of 465. No House run-off.

If fewer than five Republican legislatures abstain, then Biden will win the remaining states, and with them the presidency.

Q: So what should state lawmakers do in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?

A: Ignore the media gaslighting and exercise their constitutional responsibilities. Monitor the state election challenges closely. If no clear winner appears in, say, two more weeks, then either call a snap election using old-fashioned paper ballots in fixed polling locations or, if the governor doesn’t cooperate, call themselves into session and choose the state’s presidential electors. In the latter case, lawmakers can blame it all on the uncooperative governor. Remember that the process has to be complete before the electors meet on Dec. 14.

Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor, is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, and a senior adviser to the Convention of States movement. His research articles on the Constitution’s meaning have been cited repeatedly by justices and parties in the Supreme Court. He is the author of “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.”

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Well Connected Democrats Have Interest In Vote Counting Systems

Dominion did not immediately return a request for comment on Powell’s claims.

The company, which has about a third of the voting machine market according to Bloomberg, has faced scrutiny in the past couple of days with voting problems reported in parts of Michigan and Georgia, although the company and local officials have discounted the idea that the software was to blame.

Dominion has customers in 28 states and Puerto Rico, including all of the battleground states where Trump and his allies are contesting and pinning their hopes on recounts after media outlets called the presidential race for Biden.

Earlier in the show, Powell said at least 450,000 ballots have been identified in key states that “miraculously” only have a mark for Biden and no other candidate down-ballot. She also claimed GOP Senate candidates in Georgia and Michigan had their races “stolen” from them and argued that recounts and audits are needed in most places across the country.

Philadelphia Sheriff Not Enforcing Court Order

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, with Trump campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski (C R), speaks outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center on November 5, 2020 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – Pennsylvania continues to count votes from the November 3 election. (Photo by Kena Betancur / AFP) (Photo by KENA BETANCUR/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump campaign officials said on Thursday that the Philadelphia sheriff is refusing to enforce a judge’s order that compels election officials to allow Republican observers adequate access to monitor the ballot count.

Earlier on Thursday, Commonwealth Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon, a Democrat, ordered that effective immediately “all candidates, watchers, or candidate representatives be permitted to be present for the canvassing process … and be permitted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet.”

Trump campaign associate Pam Bondi told reporters outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center on Thursday afternoon that the election officials inside have moved the barricade within 6 feet of the counting area but defied the court order by moving all of the counting machines to the back of the building where they cannot be seen.

“They are still not in compliance,” Bondi said. “It’s unbelievable what they are trying to do to our votes that have been legally cast.”

“They will not let us see anything,” Bondi added. “Now, we’re going to take further remedy to fix this.”

“They are defying a court order by a judge and this is not the last of this.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/philadelphia-sheriff-not-enforcing-court-order-on-poll-observers-trump-campaign-says_3567159.html