Trump’s lawsuits converge upon the SCOTUS

Giuliani: "We would like to get to Supreme Court so we are prepared in some of these cases to lose and to appeal.” Opinion.

Dr. R. Sklaroff & L K. Lechter ,

US Supreme COurt
US Supreme COurt
iStock

Our Study Guide and our Handicap, published in Israel, elucidated President Trump’s strategy and how release of the Kraken (sea monster) may best be conceptualized; the transcript of the campaign’s sweeping Opening Statement presages what Trump’s team will submit within the next fortnight to the judiciary.

To simplify the task of conceptualizing multifaceted suits intended to invalidate election results, we are reminded of Albert Einstein’s admonition: “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

In fact, prior to participating in oral argument in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, Rudy Giuliani confirmed what we had surmised: “Today is to really argue the legal part of the case and frankly, this is a case that we would like to see get to Supreme Court [of the United States, the SCOTUS], so we are prepared in some of these cases to lose and to appeal.”

Thus, to muffle the cacophony of often biased blow-by-blow characterizations of what is occurring, the goal here is to reaffirm key conceptual points and to direct the legal “junkie” to all legal filings that confirm our two-step analysis.

Thus, when supposedly well-meaning politicians such as Sen. Cotton convey impatience for presentation of evidence of fraud in lieu of press conferences, Rudy properly states that it’s already in front of their eyes through sworn affidavits that would subject their authors to cross-examination.

Nowhere was this phenomenon more reprehensibly displayed than when Fox News instantly trashed the Trump team’s accusations against Dominion Voting Systems that Dana Perino even characterized as a smear, angering Attorney L. Lin Wood, Jr.; this presaged Tucker Carlson’s attack on Sidney Powell (“She refused to provide any evidence”) that he later tempered after it had provoked a maelstrom.

This is how Powell replied: “I didn’t get angry with the request to provide evidence. I sent an affidavit to Tucker that I had not even attached to a pleading yet to help him understand the situation, and I offered him another witness who could explain the mathematics and statistical evidence far better than I can. I’m not really a numbers person. But he was very insulting, demanding, and rude and I told him not to contact me again in those terms.”

Steve Bannon considers this to be a distraction, but it augmented a negative perception that has prompted migration of conservatives from newly-distasteful Fox News to Fox Business, Newsmax, One America News and America's Voice; congruent with the Thursday narrative, Bannon prefers to allege that electoral fraud was coordinated by globalists including the Chinese Communist Party, invoking a tagline (There are no conspiracies, but also no coincidences) that encompasses the panoply of Rudy’s paradigm.

It’s one thing for Trump’s legal team to demand an investigation into Dominion after Dominion lawyered-up following last-minute refusal to testify in Pennsylvania, but it’s dangerous to proclaim prematurely Dominion servers in Germany were confiscated after they showed Trump had won 410 Electoral Votes as Wood has claimed in his interviews and lawsuit; were Dominion shown to have committed fraud, a national congressional recount could be triggered (potentially flipping the House and precluding a Perdue runoff).

There is ample publicly released data suggesting hundreds of thousands of Trump votes were shifted to Biden on Election Night; there were suspicious data dumps in Georgia and Pennsylvania and in Wisconsin, where Biden suddenly was awarded a spike of 143,379 votes after GOP monitors had been excluded (at 3:42 a.m.).

Rudy blasted the media for failing to report evidence such as 220 affidavits in Michigan—including triple-counted ballots—explaining why Senatorial candidate John James has refused to concede; yet, overturning this election remains impeded (despite inability of Republicans to oversight the tabulation in Wayne County) when the Secretary of State proclaims there to be “no legal avenue” for two Republicans to rescind their certification vote (despite the fact that state-level certification hadn’t yet occurred).

Investigation by Pennsylvania House Republicans won’t be issued until February, while the Federal court rejected Trump's appeal; thus, the issue of phantom votes (when people who showed-up to vote had discovered “someone” had already voted under their names) may become an agenda item were legislators to meet with Trump, inasmuch as the House Speaker pledged there would be no certification of Pennsylvania's electors without an audit—not just a recount—of that state's votes from the election (mirroring sentiments in Michigan).

Meanwhile, revelation that a mathematician flagged up to 100,000 ballots may explain why Trump’s new counsel filed an Amended Complaint; ignored throughout are suggestions by Jonathan Turley and Rep. Devin Nunes that Biden should welcome election recounts.

Demonstrated in Georgia is the preference for audits, noting that the flawed recount of paper ballots failed to encompass discovery of thousands of uncounted Trump votes, prompting termination of the Floyd County executive director; also unclear is how the final report failed to capture the major DeKalb County discrepancy.

These discrepancies are sufficient to animate a formal challenge by Trump’s Legal Team; amplifying it would be a sweetheart settlement with Stacy Abrams that undermined the need for signature verification, acceding to a leftist challenger's demands in blatant disregard of the Secretary of State’s statutory duty to defend the law and applicable regulation.

Detailed aberrations in these and other states (Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Virginia) relate to these traditional signature comparison mandates and additional concerns with how unsolicited ballots were distributed based upon inaccurate voter rolls; that’s why Republicans have called for emergency Congressional Hearings.

Inability of either candidate to exceed 269 Electoral College votes, either by a tie or by a sufficient number of states decertifying their results following fraud investigations (absent the compulsion to flip them to Trump), would empower the House to determine the winner; Trump would win because the GOP controls a majority of the state delegations, per the 12th Amendment.

We have already discussed how Trump has orchestrated his effort to target the SCOTUS by emphasizing Federalism by honoring the (conservative) Independent State Legislature Doctrine; in addition, it’s unlikely the SCOTUS would support any effort by Biden to try to overturn the will of the House.

These observations are congruent with two recent articles on Arutz Sheva that probe why this has been a trust-challenged election due to fraud; in addition to acknowledging “meaningful” oversight by Republicans by election officials exercising “discretion,” the final arbiters on the SCOTUS would be expected to discount any claim that same-day registration could account for massive overvoting.

Court watchers ascribe great significance to how circuit court oversight has just been reassigned effective November 20, 2020 with key states now assigned to conservatives: Kavanaugh (Michigan), Barrett (Wisconsin), Alito (Pennsylvania) and Thomas (Georgia).

Finally, illustrative of how forward-looking Trump continues to be, according to John Solomon’s interview by Dr. Gina Loudon on “America’s Voice,” is that he has already designated former Solicitor General Paul Clement to argue his case before the SCOTUS.

We have excerpted underreported data to capture the essence of moving legal targets by demonstrating that they align with the two generic categories we defined, even as they continue to tiptoe around remedies we postulated by citing case law; the key challenge will be whether the SCOTUS will toss illegal votes en masse if/when they issue findings that recognize the depth of fraudulent behavior promulgated by the Democrats.

Lynne K. Lechter is a business/corporate attorney and litigator. Robert B. Sklaroff is a hematologist/oncologist.



top