Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani drives by protest
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani drives by protestREUTERS/Yuki Iwamura

Our Study Guide, published in Israel, postulated how specific electoral aberrations will wend methodically to a litigation endpoint at the Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS]; one of us [LKL] also detailed how Democrats tried to steal Pennsylvania from President Trump, noting testimonials that witnessed fraud.

After the media declared Biden as presumptive President-Elect, unleashed were far-left policy positions and personnel aspirations—plus ad hominem attacks that often targeted Jews, along with physical assaults on Trump marchers—that may trigger buyer’s remorse among moderate voters.

This, in turn, could soften the blow if/when the SCOTUS honors Trump’s multi-state (re)filings; Trump’s election data team is calling 1.25 million voters to rectify anomalies in six contested states.

This public relations component is vital politically, including dissemination of newly-unveiled support for Trump by resolute progressives such as Cynthia McKinney; in contrast, “noise” must be ignored, both preliminary skirmishes at entry-level courts and claims systemic fraud need be proven.

Instead, the backward learning design provides a paradigm that elucidates how Trump’s team is orchestrating this monumental effort, meshing with what voters and lawyers already initiated; just as “an instructor starts course planning by identifying desired learning outcomes,” Trump isolated endpoint goals that should resonate among SCOTUS Justices.

Such individual case filings carry ripple effects: [1]—intramurally, for a GOP Pennsylvania State Senate challenger is seeking to have ballots tossed based on the statewide Election Code mandate that they be dated; and [2]—extramurally, for one of us Pennsylvanians [RBS] was recruited to accrue county-level logistics on behalf of the “Georgia Recount Team” organized by Tea Party Patriots.

The pathway paved during this early phase of the discovery process is to be manifest conceptually in two steps (mirroring how the Joint Commission accredits healthcare institutions): a. evaluating constitutionality of state laws and b. defining how they were implemented.

In Pennsylvania—where fraud accusations are state-specific and generic—Trump’s filing mirrors the tradition of election-theft in Philadelphia in 1994 when “the district court … found that certain officials responsible for conducting an election … had conspired with one of the two candidates (Stinson, the Democrat) to cause numerous illegally obtained absentee ballots to be cast”; it was cured when the district court estimated that the other candidate (Marks, the Republican) would have won the election but for the fraud and declared Marks had won absent the need for another election.

In this civil lawsuit, because the standard of proof is lower than in criminal litigation’s “beyond a reasonable doubt” and punishment is often restitution, all tainted votes were flipped from the guilty party to the challenger. Lurking now is the nuclear option, for the absence of a state’s fraud-free electoral outcome could empower GOP-controlled legislatures to choose electors, even if their governors are Democrats (as in Pennsylvania).

Due to an incurious media (including Fox) and blanket defenses by AG Shapiro, however, it’s still difficult to document the electoral impact of:

[1]—ballot harvesting involving 25,000 nursing home residents;

[2]—whistleblower complaints reaffirmed against the postal service (despite a grilling);

[3]—counting of undated ballots;

[4]—lack of purging of ineligible voters, per Judicial Watch; and

[5]—operators’ ability to mark blank ballots.

Trump’s attorneys will fashion his legal mega-filings to integrate all claims with those in other states, particularly Michigan (citing the multistate Dominion scandal about which, ironically, Democrats had warned), for the SCOTUS has telegraphed intent to uphold voters’ civil rights; they will be mainstream awareness that six Justices are conservative and, thus, that a solid majority will rule as Originalists (both via text and meaning).

A handicapper observed that three current justices (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch) have signaled sympathy to rule-of-law legal arguments, and three other justices (Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) were part of the team that advanced very similar legal arguments in Bush v. Gore; it’s fortunately tangential that Democrats didn’t confront the legality of what would have flipped the results, the butterfly ballot [for reasons confirmed immediately thereafter by one of us, RBS].

In any case, applicable currently are two concepts threaded through that 2000 opinion predicated on:

[1]—honoring state legislatures while discounting activist judges who changed election law regarding filing deadlines and signature verification; and

[2]—“equal protection” when assessing how election authorities engaged in disparate treatment as they addressed inaccurate voter-rolls and ballot tampering, plus software “glitches” and last-minute updates, plus selective rehabilitation of defective ballots and blockage of GOP oversight.

These parameters also underlie Georgia Republicans’ concerns with audit protocols during a sham hand recount; for example, each group of ten counting tables will be oversighted by only one credentialed GOP monitor.

Furthermore, Jenny Beth Martin (indefatigable leader of Tea Party Patriots) observed that recounting ballots doesn’t disclose whether legal ballots are being counted without a complete audit of signatures on the absentee ballots; this is necessary because artificial intelligence and computer vision experts demonstrated that the signature verification setting for 200,000 ballots was manually lowered to 40%.

Indeed, Republicans must go on offense regarding all Congressional races, both Senatorial (notably James & McSally) and House (acknowledging a narrowed Democrat majority); in the case of Purdue, they must demand a recount following a time-frame that’s comparable to Trump’s that is to be completed by November 18, for a five-day review started on November 19 would be completed prior to Thanksgiving and would obviate the need for opposition research.

Amazingly, discourse still stalls when pundits evade proposing remediation based on case law, assuming Rudy proves primary data exceed a threshold of challenged ballots to justify changing election results; aiding/abetting Biden is the flurry of state election law changes Democrats effectuated prior to this election.

We scrutinized the import of aggregated litigation that Jon Voight recast ethically; overall, it’s vital to lionize the originator and implementer of Trumpism beyond the borders of the GOP echo-chamber.

Trump prioritizes situational ethics not moral relativism; positive populism not captive ideology; candid-contrast not false-equivalence; strategic pragmatism not idealistic dystopia, and principled realism not elitist globalism.

We need the SCOTUS.

Robert B. Sklaroff is a hematologist/oncologist. Lynne K. Lechter is a business/corporate attorney and litigator. The online version of this essay embeds key hyperlinks.