Source: David Solway
We need to begin with what most people almost surely know, despite the predictable disclaimers and pro forma expressions of doubt emerging all over the infoscape, namely, the 2020 election is in process of being stolen in what amounts to an insidiously deceptive coup d’état. It is fair to assume that this is common knowledge.
The circumstantial evidence is dispositive.
- Biden was rarely able to manage a rally of more than a dozen or two stalwarts while Trump’s rallies could top 50,000;
- Biden garnered more votes than even Obama did, a sublime unlikelihood;
- the media called for Biden when Trump was comfortably ahead in the ballot count;
- a sudden and nigh-miraculous manna drop of late-arriving ballots in the wee hours tilted the scale for Biden;
- the virtual expulsion of Republican scrutineers at the voting booths and the obstruction by State authorities of monitored recounts;
- and the use of Dominion voting systems allegedly calibrated to favor Biden and erase Trump.
Veteran lawyer Robert Kirk is convinced that the facts are
“…the kind and quality of substantial evidence, which, if presented to a jury, would easily result in a unanimous verdict by all twelve jurors, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the re-election of Donald J. Trump was stolen through the use of the Dominion voting software systems installed in states throughout our country.”
The so-called system “glitches” privileging Biden turn out to constitute an unmistakable pattern, a veritable constellation of effects. Moreover, the contest is far from over and the kraken has yet to be released.
Reviewing the reams of evidence available to date, Joe Hoft at Gateway Pundit rehearses the obvious: “Within the first 24 hours after the election we knew it was stolen. President Trump sets the record for the most votes ever and somehow the guy in the basement who is quickly failing in intellectual abilities…somehow broke the all-time vote record to beat the President’s win.”
Naturally, much has been made of the media-hyped imbroglio between lawyer Sidney Powell and the President. While the fissure is obviously troubling, adverse or gloating commentary sits in the realm of pure speculation. For all we know, the breach between the two legal teams may argue a strategy to damp down criticism of Powell as “unhinged,” reflecting poorly on Trump, or perhaps to prepare for a pincer movement in deposing evidence before adjudicating bodies. Time will tell.
Additionally, as Andrea Widburg points out, Trump’s approval of U.S. General Services administrator Emily Murphy’s decision to make resources available to the Biden transition team does not imply surrender, but a signal that “he is not some madman determined to stay hunkered down in the White House.” Rather, it is a wise tactical move “tak[ing] the wind out of the sails of every person who asserts that he is acting as a nascent tyrant. It’s the Obamas of this world, not the Trumps, who makes their successor’s transition a nightmare.”
When all is said and done, the outcome of an irremediably tainted election will come down to two critical factors: The Supreme Court and the military. If Trump does not have the military behind him, his disadvantage will likely be terminal. There can then be no question of invoking the Insurrection Act should it become necessary or that licit arrests on grounds of treason can even be contemplated.
If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case or agrees to consider it but concludes there is not sufficient evidence to validate Trump’s deposition, the election will be over, Trump will have lost, and America will head down the road to the installation of a totalitarian socialist regime — what Trump promised he would never allow. It will make no difference whether Biden packs the court or not, for it will already have semaphored its weakness, its inherent lack of juridical integrity, and its ultimately quixotic nature. Republican and Democrat alike would know that fraud so massive that it is practically incalculable had demonstrably occurred, and that no one in authority, including the Supreme Court, would want to confront a political cataclysm and ignite the wrath and violence of a ruthlessly aggressive and homicidal Left.
The argument would be that civil unrest must be avoided at all costs and that it is preferable to turn a blind eye to electoral theft than to preside over the fracturing of the nation and the abrogation of the civil contract. The argument, of course, would be disingenuous, self-serving and cowardly, the ultimate sophistry. For the nation is already fractured, the civil contract has effectively ceased to exist, and the corruption has gone so deep that, if it is not met head-on and scoured clean, there would be no nation remaining whose civil character could be assumed to exist. The electoral malady would have been fatal.
But the Fat Lady has not yet begun to warble. There has been some encouraging news just breaking. The Supreme Court has announced that three conservative justices, Amy Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito, have been assigned to oversee circuit court cases in key swing states. The Court has now become profoundly involved. What this may augur for the future is another matter.
I have met people who agree that the election has indeed been stolen and approve of the theft — anything to get Trump out of the White House is legitimate. In their books vice is the higher virtue, the ends justify the means and a statistically improbable, pre-determined result is to be applauded irrespective of how it may violate conscience and ethical principle, a sentiment shared by millions, which does not make it any less immoral. A lie is a lie and the truth is the truth, no matter how we scumble the picture. As noted, any reasonable person suspects, almost to a practical certainty, that a gargantuan electoral swindle is happening before their very eyes, and the same is surely true of committed Democrats. Honor among thieves may be the greatest dishonor imaginable. They do not care. The arc of injustice bends toward a desired conclusion.