Joe Biden got how many votes?!

In the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden got over 81 million votes.

This is different, however, from saying over 81 million people voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

Yes, there were over 81 million votes registered for Joe Biden, but did over 81 million people actually vote for Joe Biden?

Let’s give this claim the smell test.

If we look back at the 2020 presidential race, Joe Biden was very unimpressive in his own party’s primary elections.

Once Biden was crowned with the democrat party nomination, his campaign for president was almost non-existent.

He rarely appeared anywhere, and when he did his turnout was abysmal and embarrassing.  

Yet, we are told to believe Joe Biden received more votes than any presidential candidate in history?!

We are told to believe that Joe Biden got almost 12 million more votes than Barack Obama got in 2008, and over 16 million more than Obama got in 2012?!

Really?

Joe Biden’s 81+ million votes was 7 million more than President Trump got, and President Trump’s 74+ million votes was 11 million more votes than he got when he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And Joe Biden supposedly beat President Trump, even though the votes President Trump received from African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians were up between 4%-7%.

Again…, really?

That’s an impressive gain.

It’s also always been said that no one wins the White House without winning Ohio…, but Joe Biden did.

So, how did Joe Biden manage to win the election?

That’s the question any fair-minded and independent thinking person has to ask.

And anyone with any common sense would have to say that Joe Biden’s victory DOES NOT pass the smell test…, not by a long shot.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

I believe Sidney Powell.

And I believe in Sidney Powell.

And I don’t think any of us can thank her enough for all of her efforts.

Who is Sidney Powell you might ask, and what is it she is saying that I believe?

Sidney Powell is an attorney and a former federal prosecutor

After graduating from law school in 1978, Powell began her career as an assistant United States attorney in the Western District of Texas.

She ceased working as a prosecutor in 1988 and established her own firm in 1993. She has acted in appellate matters as a prosecutor and defense counsel.

In 2019, she stepped in and defended retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn, ultimately getting the DOJ to drop its case against him. Powell was castigated by the fake news, and called a conspiracy theorist, for claiming Flynn was framed by a covert “deep state” operation, which it was proven he was.

In 2020, Powell joined the legal team of then-President Donald Trump in an attempt to show the wide-spread election fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

There’s Sidney’s resume.

She is definitely not someone to be taken lightly. 

But, again, she is being called a conspiracy theorist, as we hear within a week of the election that William Barr is saying that “the Justice Department and the FBI have found no evidence of widespread fraud in this election.”

We also heard “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement. Also, that “The Department’s Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees found ‘no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

And lastly, “America, we have confidence in the security of your vote, you should, too,” Chris Krebs, Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said in a tweet.

So, who’s right…, Sidney Powell of this collection of “swamp donkeys?”

Let’s see what she has to say about the 2020 election.

Here is the interview with Chad Nesbitt, for Skyline News, from inauguration day, 2021.

Chad started off by introducing Sidney, then asked her what she has been doing regarding the 2020 election.

Sidney said they were in the process of getting their website, defendingtherepublic.org up and running.

She continued by saying, “Posted on it are all of the pleadings we’ve filed…, challenging on constitutional and factual grounds, the results of the election, including hundreds of pages of documents and affidavits and other evidence that shows that the election was indeed fraudulent, and that President Trump won. He had about 80 million votes and Biden had much less than that, aside from the fact that hundreds of thousands of Biden votes were fraudulent from the get go.”

“There were hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots, there were flipped votes by algorithms [preprogrammed instructions to be applied by the computer] run in the machines, and not just the ones from Dominion [a voting machine manufacturer used by a number of states], but also from others it seems.  We’re still collecting evidence on all of that, and even though we’ve had to drop at least two of our lawsuits that were pending in front of The Supreme Court because the court did not act in sufficient time to keep them viable, they became what’s called ‘mute’ in legal parlance, meaning the relief we requested was no longer viable, because the electors had already been seated and now Biden has already been inaugurated.”

So, none of her cases were dropped on their merits, only on technicalities.

“We are still looking at other options for litigation because there are substantial issues that still need to be raised, and my principle has always been that the American people are entitled to the truth, no matter which way it falls. And given the huge fight that has been mounted against getting at the truth, that alone tells me we’re on the right track and over the target.”

Agreed.  The old saying is “You know when you’re over the target when you start taking flack,” referring to bombing runs in WWII.

Nesbitt then asked, “Well, what’s the matter with these people?  What’s the matter with these courts? Why won’t they hear these cases that you guys have? A lot of people just don’t understand that. What do you think their problem is?”

Sidney responded, “I don’t understand it either.  I’ve seen our court system deteriorate for the last twenty years. I self-published a book back in 2014, a book called ‘Licensed to Lie,’ exposing corruption in the Department of Justice, and it’s only getting worse since then, and that was based on conduct I saw beginning in the year 2001.”

“Our system has done nothing but deteriorate, and when the republicans have had power, they’ve done nothing to clean it up.  It’s only gotten worse.”

And we have all seen evidence of that in recent years.

Nesbitt, “That’s right. Exactly. I couldn’t agree more. And it’s just amazing to me to see what they are doing on a regular basis. It amazes me that they have blocked you on social media.  I’ve never seen anything like this in my entire lifetime…What do you say about that, blocking you on social media like they have?”

Sidney Powell, “Well, it’s very concerning. It’s one of their tactics to isolate and shutdown opposition speech, when we actually represent the majority of the country, because we know that President Trump won the election.  So, the only tactics they have are to lie, to suppress speech, and otherwise bullying and intimidation, and to use power to consolidate the power they already have.  And I think we’re going to see that in spades…, and we’ve already seen that today.”

“It started with all of the executive orders that put us back in the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Accord, they’re not going to build any more walls, they’re going to let in, I mean, there are more caravans of illegal aliens coming up, they’re going to legalize 11 million people who are not supposed to be here.  They want them counted for purposes of representation which is totally unconstitutional.  They’re effectively abolishing The Constitution, and they’ve been doing it for the last 15 years.  It’s been a slow erosion.  It is simply going to gain speed at a pace we can’t even comprehend.”

Nesbitt, “Eighty million of us, or more, voted for Donald Trump, and I guarantee you…, we were all thinking that Trump had something up his sleeve, right here at the very end, and I see a lot of people, some of the people that were in his office, and a lot of them, in my opinion, weren’t telling Donald Trump the truth about what was going on out here, in regards to the legalities, and about how things could be done in court to have avoided all of this stuff, and giving the election to the rightful person, who was Donald Trump.  What do you think?”

Sidney answers by saying, “I think the people around him for his entire term have tried to control him by controlling the flow of information that he got, and the people he could talk to.  There was a massive effort throughout his term to tamp down and limit what he could do by all means possible, predominantly by deep state members, actors, whatever you want to call it.  A lot of former Bush people, and then some who were even more liberal than that.”

Lastly, Nesbitt asked, “What can we do as voters out here? I mean we feel like we’ve just been robbed of this election, and in elections going forward…We’re concerned about them…We’re concerned that our vote won’t count because they’re going to rig it again.  What can we do as voters to put a stop to this?”

That’s the million dollar question!

Sidney responds, “There’s every reason to be concerned about that.  What reason would anyone have to ever trust the voting system again?  So, a number of state legislatures, including Arizona now, has agreed to allow us access to the Maricopa County voting records, including the original ballots.  And people need to insist on this everywhere, even if you think your election was totally valid.  Federal law requires everybody to keep all federal voting records for 22 months for the very purpose of allowing a full and complete audit of the vote. I guarantee you that other votes were manipulated also.  There are governor races that the conservative should have won.  There are local races, in fact in [one] Michigan [county], we learned that they illegally changed the vote, allowing a marijuana store in a town, just by one vote to make sure it came in, and this is not what the people voted for.  So, it’s things that are that small, for lack of a better phrase at the moment, that were altered by criminal conduct in changing the vote.  We all need to work immediately, get organized and productive in our efforts to hold our local officials accountable, and make them audit the votes that were entered this time, then go to a different system of voting. We’ve got to revert to the paper ballots. The old machines where you go in and flip the levers and you pull the handle to register your vote and the card is punched, or whatever, and the machine, that’s not computerized, but simply registers the tally or something…, but we’ve got to find a system that’s more trustworthy, because they pulled out all the stops this year in every manner and means of cheating ever known to man and then some.”    

So, it seems the answer to the million dollar question is, we need o change the system back to make it fair again.  The problem is the democrats like it just like it has become…, unaccountable and manipulatable…, and they’re the ones calling the shots right now.

So, the bottom line is our democracy is in big trouble, and there doesn’t appear to be any kind of remedy in sight.

God help us all.

And God help Sidney Powell.  It seems like she is the only one out there fighting for the truth regarding the 2020 election.

Thank you, Sidney.  You are a patriot and a great American.      

You can support Sidney Powell and the cause by going to defendingtherepublic.org or by going to her own website at sidneypowell.com.      

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

KABOOM!!! That’s the sound of my head exploding!

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that, “The Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office announced Monday that they were investigating whether any current or former DOJ employees attempted to alter the results of the 2020 presidential election.”

“Investigating whether any current or former DOJ employees attempted to alter the results of the 2020 presidential election!!!”

KABOOM!!!

How about investigating the hundreds and hundreds of sworn depositions from people who witnessed election fraud?!!!

How about investigating states that chose to arbitrarily create new election procedures while choosing to ignore their actual election laws?!!!

How about investigating that?!!!

First of all…, excuse me, but we have to recognize that we no longer have a “Department of Justice!”

We have a herd of swamp donkeys masquerading as “Department of Justice” employees, but we have no real “department of Justice” anymore.  And that would include the Federal Bureau of Incompetence as well.

‘“The investigation will encompass all relevant allegations that may arise that are within the scope of the OIG’s jurisdiction,’ the announcement from Inspector General Michael Horowitz said, noting that this jurisdiction covers the conduct of past and present DOJ employees but ‘does not extend to allegations against other government officials.’”

Gee…, thanks for clarifying that, Michael “swamp donkey” Horowitz!

Hee haw!  

“The official announcement did not go into any further details, but a source familiar with the probe pointed to Friday’s New York Times report about now-former President Donald Trump working with certain Justice Department officials to possibly replace then-acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen with someone who would have been more open to overturning election results.”

KABOOM!!!

Excuse me, there goes my head, again…, but has the New York Times ever speculated about, or even bothered to report about the treasonous attempted coup, directed by former President Obama, weaponizing the DOJ and the FBI, against the newly elected President Trump back in 2016?!  

And this is no “conspiracy theory,” like the fake news likes to hide behind.

This actually occurred…, and it’s well documented now.    

“The [New York Times] report said that Trump and DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark had discussed a plan involving replacing Rosen [Acting Attorney General, Jeffrey Rosen] with Clark and pressuring Georgia to overturn the results of the election in that state by sending a letter to lawmakers saying they were looking into voter fraud allegations and the results should be vacated.”

So?

Ooooh…, he’s going to send a letter to lawmakers!

And it’s going to say he’s looking into voter fraud allegations!

OMG…, Really?

“White House counsel Pat Cippollone reportedly advised Trump not to do this, and Trump eventually decided not to pursue that course.”

Again, so what if he did or didn’t pursue it…, big deal. 

“Clark denied to the Times that he was involved in any plan to have Rosen removed, and said details of the talks he had with Trump had been distorted.”

Even if they were planning on removing Rosen, so what?

Isn’t it within the President’s rights to fire and hire AGs as he sees fit?

Ding, ding, ding! 

That’s right, Johnny…, now tell him what he’s won!

You’ve won one, all expenses paid “Atta boy!”

Maybe now I can afford to go to Journalism school and become a world class idiot!

‘“There was a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president,’ Clark told the newspaper. ‘It is unfortunate that those who were part of a privileged legal conversation would comment in public about such internal deliberations, while also distorting any discussions.’”

That’s what happens, Mr. Clark, when you are operating within… the… “swamp zone!”

 If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

“Illegitimate” Joe Biden?

When over 70 million Americans feel you’re illegitimate, you are, by definition, illegitimate.

Is that how you want to be thought of, Joe?

Obviously, the answer, based on his actions so far, is that he doesn’t care what you think of him, as long as he gets to be president.

I believe most of those 70 million are like me and the people I know, who would have no problem with a President Biden, if we knew he had won the election fair and square.

We can stand to lose, but we can’t stand being cheated.

If President-elect Biden really wanted what was best for the country, and really wanted to an American hero…, he would say something along these lines:

“Dear fellow Americans,

I understand that many of you have concerns regarding the integrity of the recent presidential election.

I believe those concerns are unfounded, but in an effort to restore the faith in our election process and establish a sense of unity amongst the American people, I promise to establish a commission on day one of my presidency, that will look into any possible election fraud, or a disregard for election laws, that may have occurred during the 2020 election.

If it is determined that there were enough issues and irregularities to put my winning of the election in doubt, I will insist that steps be taken to cure these issues, up to and including a possible re-vote in those states in question.  

I am proud to represent all of the American people as your president, but I do not want this dark cloud hanging over my presidency either, nor the future elections in 2022 and 2024.

It is my hope that this action will help to restore faith in myself and in our government.

May God continue to bless us all and continue to bless the United States of America.

Thank you.”

If President-elect Biden were to do this, I believe he would earn the respect of a vast majority of the American people, and establish himself immediately as one of our greatest presidents.

What do you think?

I’d really love to hear everyone’s opinion on this.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Brad “Benedict Arnold” Raffensperger.

In case you don’t know, I’m talking about Brad Raffensperger, the supposed republican, and the Georgia Secretary of State.

The same secretary of state who denies any irregularities occurred during the Georgia presidential election.

The same secretary of state who cut a backroom deal with Stacey Abrams (Georgia politician, lawyer, and voting rights [really election fraud] activist, who served in the Georgia House of Representatives from 2007 to 2017, serving as minority leader from 2011 to 2017.) which basically removed any accountability requirements for mail-in ballots, without the approval from the state legislature, which would be unconstitutional, if anyone would care to notice.  

The same secretary of state who refuses to release any of their data from the election, and the same secretary of state who, along with their RINO (Republican in Name Only) governor, Brian kemp, has not allowed a special session of their own legislature to investigate the allegations of election fraud.

Allegations supported by security camera video and dozens of signed affidavits.

According to CBS 46 News in Atlanta, “The video tape evidence alleges proof of ballots being counted without oversight. A subcommittee comprised of both Republicans and Democrats held a hearing at the State Capitol for perhaps the biggest bombshell presented to lawmakers from inside State Farm Arena.”

“For the first time, the president’s legal team, led by [Rudy] Giuliani, presented surveillance video from the state’s largest voting center. The video allegedly shows people taking out at least four boxes of ballots from underneath a table, and then counting them after hours with no election supervisors present.”

‘“The same person that stayed behind, the person that cleared the place out under the pretense that we are going to stop counting is the person who put the table there at 8:22 in the morning. I saw four suitcases come out from underneath the table,’ Attorney Jacki Pick said.”

“It is believed that each box consisted of about 6,000 ballots. If accurate, that would amount to about 24,000 potential votes.”

And yet, these documented election violations are dismissed with a wave of a hand.

Now why would that be?

Because Brad and his scurvy friends have since investigated themselves and found they didn’t do anything wrong.

Well, alrighty then!

Are we talking about Georgia, one of the United States, or about Georgia, the country, located between Russia and Turkey, that seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991?

Now I come across an article from “fake news” CNN, by one of Hillary’s and Obama’s BFFs, David Axelrod, who praises “The courage of Brad Raffensperger!”

Oh, yes…, Brad is sooo courageous.  

This ought to be good.

David Axelrod, a senior CNN political commentator, was senior adviser to President Barack Obama and chief strategist for the 2008 and 2012 Obama presidential campaigns.

According to Axelrod, “The hour-long recording of the President of the United States, defeated and desperate, begging Georgia’s secretary of state over the phone to ‘find’ him enough votes to overturn the election results there was appalling.”

As appalling as secretly recording The President’s phone conversation, without his knowledge, and then releasing it to the “liberal propaganda” media?

“After four years of Donald Trump’s blatant assault on democratic institutions rules, norms and laws, anyone who is shocked by this latest outrage simply hasn’t been paying attention. It was only a year ago that Trump was impeached for a similar attempt to strong-arm the president of Ukraine.”

“DONALD TRUMP’S BLATANT ASSAULT ON DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You say that, “…anyone who is shocked by this latest outrage simply hasn’t been paying attention.”

On the contrary…, the democrats are counting on people not paying attention, and helping them to not pay attention!

Otherwise more people would be aware of the “blatant assault” on President Trump by first the Obama administration, then the DOJ and the FBI, and then the corrupt and anti-American democrat leadership, along with most of the media in this country!

Just sayin’.

Axelrod continues, “No, what was remarkable about the whole, surreal and sordid conversation was not Trump’s recycling of debunked [No, just denied, out of hand, actually.] conspiracy theories nor his insistent claim, against all evidence [Evidence that we aren’t allowed to actually see, of course], that he had won the state by ‘hundreds of thousands of votes.’”

“It wasn’t hearing the President sounding like a mafia don.”

And Axelrod would know what a mafia don sounds like because…?

“It was the calm and steadfast way Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his attorney, Ryan Germany, firmly rebuffed him.”

Well, they did have the advantage of knowing the call was being recorded, after all.

“After patiently listening to and rebutting each of Trump’s bizarre diatribes [All of which are well documented and supported by witnesses, by the way.] about supposedly rigged machines, dead voters, shredded ballots and other social media-driven drivel, Raffensperger cut to the chase:”

‘“Well, Mr. President,’ he said, in even tones, ‘the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong.’”

“It’s a safe bet that Raffensperger, a Republican [A RINO, actually] who supported Trump [just so he could get elected], would have much preferred that Joe Biden had lost Georgia [Well, obviously not.]. Raffensperger might then have avoided Trump’s wrath and the political and personal threats he has endured.”

What threats exactly did The President make?  I only heard him make requests.

Requests from The President that Raffensperger treat him fairly and insure that election laws were being followed?   

‘“They don’t want to vote [referring to Georgian Trump supporters],’ Trump told Raffensperger, who will be up for reelection in 2022. ‘They hate the state, they hate the governor, and they hate the secretary of state. I will tell you that right now. The only people that like you are people that will never vote for you [Georgia democrats]. You know that, Brad, right?’”

‘“It is more illegal for you than it is for them [the cheating democrats] because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it,’ the President said. ‘That’s criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer…that’s a big risk.’”

That’s a threat?

That sounds more like The President offering sound and truthful advice more than anything.

“In his book ‘Profiles in Courage,’ former President John F. Kennedy described rare acts of political courage, in which politicians placed duty and conscience ahead of public opinion or their own political well-being.”

This is the definition of President Trump, actually, Axelrod, but you predictably choose to shine you light on Raffensperger instead.  

“By standing up for the integrity of the election despite Trump’s shameless pressure, Raffensperger has proven himself, in America’s moment of trial, to be an admirable exception. He has shown courage.”

“By standing up for the integrity of the election,” of course you mean “standing up for the MANIPULATION of the election.”

“Voters may not reward him for it, but history will.”

Only the twisted, liberal propaganda, version of history will remember Brad “Benedict Arnold” Reffensperger in any kind of a positive light.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Did your vote count?

In my community, people still believe that each person’s individual vote is a sacred right.

When I go to vote, in person, I’m asked to present my photo ID.  My name and address is then checked against our voter rolls.

I’m issued a voter number and a ballot.

I fill out my ballot and present it to an election official there and they then scan it through the voting machine.

At this point I hope my vote is registered properly, and not as .75 of a vote, or switched entirely.

I doubt my vote here has been manipulated, as I live in a small community, not really worth messing with, although my vote has already, basically, been discounted by those (the democrats) who would undermine our election.

And there are thousands of communities just like mine across our country.  

In other places, we see mail-in ballots arriving days after the election, being back dated, and then being counted.

We see many of these mail-in ballots having no identification on them at all, as to who cast this vote.

We see mismatched signatures and imaginary birth dates.

We have votes being cast by dead people, people who aren’t even legal citizens, and by people who don’t live in the area they are voting.

We see “election officials” “correcting” or “fixing” ballots as they see fit, and scanning selected ballots over and over again.

Election monitors being blocked from being able to effectively monitor the vote, or election monitors being deceived to allow unmonitored ballot processing.

And we see people voting by mail-in ballot and then again voting again in person.

The list of fraudulent voting activity witnessed during this last election, by people submitting signed affidavits, seems to go on and on.

It’s a question of basic election integrity.

This is why people like me, and there are millions of us, feel that we have been robbed, not of our vote, but of the meaningfulness and actual value of our vote.

The Supreme Court really needed to consider and hear the Texas lawsuit, which charged the states allowing all of this election fraud to occur, and yes, causing damages to the rest of us.

These states, without question, “damaged” our entire election process and the value of each of our votes.

I’m sure if this Supreme Court would have been presented with the case of slavery, or slave owner rights, they would have declined to hear it as well.

I know exactly what happened with our Supreme Court regarding the Texas lawsuit; they ruled based on the technicality of “the laws,” although they never really questioned “the law…,” the states’ adherence to their own laws and The Constitution…, and they failed to do what was right.  

This was a failure, and a level of corruption, that our country may never recover from.  

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.  

A “rabbit hole?”

“Rabbit hole” appears to be the latest liberal buzzword(s).

If you listen to any democrat politician or the mainstream talk about questions surrounding possible election fraud, the term “rabbit hole” will undoubtedly surface before too long.

It seems they all got the memo.

So, what are they referring to? 

From Yourdictionary.com, “Something that is intricate or convoluted like a labyrinth and often has no outlet or resolution.  A situation regarded as surreal, bewildering, convoluted, etc.”

From Macmillandictionary.com, “From Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, a famous children’s story by Lewis Carroll in which a girl called Alice falls down a rabbit hole into a strange dreamlike world.”

So, when anyone dares to question the integrity of the 2020 election, in any way, we are deemed to be “going down a rabbit hole.”

This of course is just the democrats’ way of deflecting any concerns about the election, without having to come up with any kind of response to the obvious and documented irregularities.

A true use of the term “going down a rabbit hole” could best be applied when referring to the democrats’ claims of “Russian collusion” or their pursuit of the impeachment of President Trump. These were true trips into a “surreal,” or a “strange dreamlike world.”   

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

The “fix” was obviously in.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court tossed out President Trump’s election lawsuit on everything BUT the merits of the case.

According to the Associated Press, “The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, ending [President] Trump’s legal challenges in state court about an hour before the Electoral College was to meet to cast the state’s 10 votes for Biden.”

“The President sought to have more than 221,000 ballots disqualified in Dane and Milwaukee counties, the state’s two most heavily Democratic [and most heavily populated] counties. In a 4-3 ruling, Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative writing for the majority, said the Trump campaign was ‘not entitled to the relief it seeks.’”

Okay…, first of all…, why is it important to note that Justice Hagedorn is supposedly a “conservative?”  Is that supposed to lend some credence to his opinion?

I guess so. 

“Hagedorn used a sports analogy when ruling against Trump, saying he waited too long to raise his complaints.”

‘“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration,’ Hagedorn wrote.”

He seems to assume everyone reading his ruling is familiar with American football, and the National Football League. 

Actually, I think that is quite culturalist and even misogynistic.

But that’s okay, as long as it’s a ruling against President Trump and conservatives.    

‘“The challenges raised by the [President’s] Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.’”

As I have stated in earlier blogs, is it ever too late for justice to be served?

And you shouldn’t be looking at any “rulebook” adopted by anyone else other that the state’s legislature, which is solely given the rights to create the laws governing a state’s elections by The United States Constitution. 

“[President] Trump wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed ‘indefinitely confined’ status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.”

Please note that there is nothing in Wisconsin’s election laws, established by the legislature, allowing for any of this.

“The court ruled that [President] Trump’s challenge to voters who were indefinitely confined was without merit and that the other claims came too late.”

“Liberal justices Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky, who sided with Hagedorn, wrote separately to emphasize that there was no evidence of fraud in Wisconsin’s election.”

‘“Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook,’ Dallet and Karofksy said. ‘No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election.’”

Even though these two wrote separately from Hagedorn, they sure seem to be writing from the same “playbook,” if you want to use football terminology.

“Karofsky blasted [President] Trump’s case during Saturday’s hearing, saying it ‘smacks of racism’ and was ‘un-American.’ Conservative justices voiced some concerns about how certain ballots were cast, while also questioning whether they could or should disqualify votes only in two counties.”

“Smacks of racism?!”

“Un-American?!

Please, Justice Karofsky, we don’t need an obviously biased and disingenuous lecture from you on top of your misguided and partisan decision regarding this case. 

Karofsky is the larger pictured justice on the right.

“Biden [supposedly] won Wisconsin by about 20,600 votes, a margin of 0.6% that withstood a Trump-requested recount in Milwaukee and Dane counties, the two with the most Democratic votes. Trump did not challenge any ballots cast in the counties he won.”

Oh really?!

That’s odd.

Why would he challenge the counties he won?

And a recount of the same illegal ballots is, of course, just going to produce the same results.

Yes, folks, the “fix” was obviously in.

It’s a real shame that many of these state supreme courts are now making their judgements based on politics rather than the law.

In many cases, our judicial branch of government has “sold its soul” to the politically corrupt neo-fascist manipulators in our country.   

“Justice” has now become what some liberal perceives it to be, or wants it to be, and not what it actually should be.  

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

UPDATE#5: Remember the Alamo! (Monday, 12/14/20).

Late Friday night, The United States Supreme Court elected to not even hear the Texas election lawsuit.

Even though the lawsuit was backed by The President, 18 states, and over 100 members of Congress, The United States Supreme Court felt this would be a waste of their time to even hear the arguments is the case.

I was personally shocked by their decision which, I believe, will go down in history as one of he most shameful decisions ever rendered by a United States Supreme Court.

CBS News reports that, “In a tweet overnight, Mr. [President] Trump said, ‘The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!’ after the court’s 7-2 ruling rejected a push from Texas to block electors in four battleground states from voting in the Electoral College.”

For the record…,  

The seven justices who rejected the case are:

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States,

Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice,

Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,

Elena Kagan, Associate Justice,

Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice,

Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice,

Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice.

The two justices who felt the case was worth hearing are:

Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,

Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice.

None of the three Justices appointed by President Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, nor Amy Coney Barrett, opted to defend The President. 

I’m sure the liberal justices would have acted the same way if this had been a challenge supporting former President Obama.

NOT!  

“The decision effectively ends The President’s five-week effort to legally challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.”

“In rejecting the lawsuit, the court wrote that ‘Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.’”

So, The Supreme Court of The United States is saying that Texas, and all of the other states that joined in the lawsuit, somehow has no interest if other states don’t follow Constitutional law, allow their election to be compromised by cheating, and thus allow an illegitimate winner to be installed as President of the United States?

Really?

“The four states — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin — all went to Mr. Biden.”

“The lawsuit filed Monday by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the court to invalidate the four key states’ votes, but judges across the country have repeatedly tossed out those claims due to a lack of evidence.”

“Lack of evidence?!”

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, if any of these courts would care to look at it.

“Over 100 House Republicans filed a brief in support of Paxton’s suit claiming the election was riddled with allegations of fraud and irregularities.”

“Mr. [President] Trump had been counting on a Supreme Court victory. Three of the seven justices who rejected the case were Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett — all his own appointees.”

Yes…, and shame on all of you.

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

Barrett

“Earlier in the week, the president struck an optimistic tone at a White House Hanukkah party.”

“In a video posted to Twitter, he said: ‘I understand a lot of congressmen and women have joined in, a lot of people are joining in because they can’t allow this to happen.’”

‘“You can’t have a country where somebody loses an election and becomes president,’ Mr. Trump continued.”

The Supreme Court obviously doesn’t feel there is a problem with that.

“Paxton released a statement calling the court’s decision ‘unfortunate,’ asserting he ‘will continue to tirelessly defend the integrity and security of our elections and hold accountable those who shirk established election law for their own convenience.’”

“Unfortunate” is the very, very, very least that can be said to describe this turn of events.  

“The President’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani joined ‘Hannity’ on Fox News Friday evening, and said the Supreme Court’s decision was wrong.”

‘“The Supreme Court has made a terrible, terrible mistake in not getting this resolved in a fair, in a decent and in an equitable way,’ Giuliani said. ‘Because it’s gonna leave a real black mark with regard to this election throughout our entire history.’”

Well said, Rudy, and I absolutely agree.

Additionally, according to National Public Radio (NPR), “The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden’s election as president.”

“The court’s action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was denied ‘for lack of standing.’”

“Texas, supported by President Trump, tried to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, claiming fraud, without evidence.”

Again, since when aren’t signed affidavits evidence?   

“But in order for a state to bring a case in court, especially the Supreme Court, a state must show it has been injured. In essence, the court said Texas could not show that it was injured by the way other states conducted their elections.”

I believe Texas demonstrated quite clearly how it believed it had been injured.

According to the Morris Bart, LLC Law firm website, regarding “standing to sue,” “When a party files a lawsuit there are many things he or she must prove besides just the facts of the case. One of these legal concepts is known in Latin as ‘locus standi,’ in other words, ‘standing to sue.’ Here is the essential breakdown of this principle and how it might affect your legal rights.”

“What does it mean to have ‘standing’ in court? In layman’s terms, legal standing to sue is about who has the right to bring an action in court, not about the issues or facts of the actual case. Under Article III of the Constitution, courts can only hear actual ‘cases’ or ‘controversies,’ so standing law helps enforce this requirement by requiring that the party filing sue suffer an injury caused by the other party that can actually be addressed by the court.”

“It’s important to note that because standing law is established by the US Constitution, these requirements only apply to federal court lawsuits. For state standing requirements, you would look to state law.”

“What are the three elements of standing to sue?”

“In the legal world, ‘element’ is another word for a factor that the party must prove as part of a broader legal concept. In terms of standing, a party must prove three elements.”

“INJURY IN FACT means that a person has suffered an actual injury. This can be a physical injury or economic loss, the two most common types of injuries. However, this element can also include harm that is caused to conservation, aesthetic, or recreational interests as well. Importantly, in most cases, the injury must already have occurred, rather than being something hypothetical that might happen in the future.”

“CAUSATION means that the injury to the plaintiff was caused by the person or party that is being sued. In other words, the party bringing the lawsuit needs to show that “but for” the defendant’s action or inaction, they would not have been injured. If the plaintiff cannot prove a connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, they will not be able to prove that they have standing to bring the lawsuit.”

“Finally, REDRESSABILITY means that the court will actually be capable of doing something to correct or make up for the plaintiff’s injury. This can mean ordering the defendant to undo what it has done, or if that isn’t possible, imposing penalties or fines that would have a deterrent effect. It’s important to remember that the court’s jurisdiction does not extend outside of the United States, and courts can only order parties to take certain actions, so there is a limit on whether a court’s order can “redress” the injury the plaintiff has suffered.”

“When interpreting these standards, courts have also added other rules, often called ‘prudential standing,’ to help them consistently apply standing law. These rules include limits on when taxpayers can sue for grievances that affect the general public, and the requirement that the injury be within the ‘zone of interest’ a statute is intended to cover, among many others.”

“Why do courts require standing for a lawsuit to proceed?  At the most basic level, courts require standing because the Constitution requires them to enforce the law. However, there are many policy reasons that courts require legal standing. Because of the requirement that federal courts only hear actual ‘cases or controversies,’ these requirements prevent courts from litigating abstract political questions that have public significance, but have not actually yet harmed anyone. This means that courts can use their time and efforts only on those cases where they can have an actual impact.”

This is why we get jokes like:

What do you call a busload of lawyers driving over a cliff?

A good start.

In my opinion, these justices were just looking for an excuse to not get involved. 

When over 75 million voters feel like they’ve been “injured,” I’d say that is something worth addressing.

Our country was looking to them to help pull us out of the fire, and they just turned their backs on law-abiding American citizens, and our country in general.  

Thanks for nothing Supreme Court.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

UPDATE#4: Remember the Alamo! (Friday, 12/11/20).

Well, it’s in the Supreme Court’s hands now.

The only question left is: Is The Supreme Court going to sit back and allow the democrats to steal this election or not?  

According to Tyler Olson and Bill Mears of Fox News, “Texas on Friday morning filed a ‘reply brief’ with the Supreme Court as it asks the tribunal to hear its lawsuit that aims to essentially nullify the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin — putting the ball in the justices’ court to issue an order in the case.”

“The ‘briefing stage’ of Supreme Court litigation consists of the first party, in this instance, Texas, asking the court to hear the case. Then opposition briefs are filed by those on the other side of the case. Then the first party is allowed to file a ‘reply brief,’ which Texas did Friday morning.”

‘“Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief,’ the Texas brief says of the opposition briefs filed by Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia Thursday.”

“Texas continues: ‘An injunction should be issued because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions.’”

“The justices now could simply issue an order saying that they refuse to hear the case. They could also agree to hear the case and promptly dismiss it or rule in favor of Texas. The justices could also request oral arguments before ruling.”

“The crux of the Texas case is the argument that the four states it is suing — all four of which swung for President-elect Joe Biden — unconstitutionally changed their election statutes in their judiciaries or executive branches, when only the legislature is allowed to make election law. The reply brief Friday says that the four states failed to adequately dispute their point that this makes their entire elections invalid.”

‘“Defendant States do not credibly dispute either that they changed election statutes via non-legislative means or that the Electors Clause preempts such changes,’ the Texas brief says. ‘Accordingly, Texas is likely to prevail on the merits.’”

“Texas’ Friday brief says that it not asking the Supreme Court to decide or overturn the results of the presidential election, but right a constitutional wrong.”

‘“Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters,’ Texas’ brief says.”

“It continues: ‘Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for the next step.’”

How can the Supreme Court not act in this case?

‘“The timing is extremely late and the justices have been reluctant to resolve election disputes too close to an election, much less after a presidential election has been conducted and votes certified in the states at issue,’ [University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl] Tobias told Fox News.”

“Late?”

Is that all you’ve got?

“Late?”

“Late” regarding what?

Is it ever too late to request that justice be served?

They just finally completed counting votes not too long ago!

And it seems like they keep finding more ballots to count all the time!  

“There is no specific time limit for the justices to issue an order in the case, though some action is likely to come before Monday [12/14/2020], which is when presidential electors across the country will assemble in their state capitals to cast their electoral votes for president.”

Again, it is my belief that, considering all of the possible ramifications, this decision by The Supreme Court will go down in history as the most important decision it has ever made.

We’ll now see if the five conservative judges on the Supreme Court have the courage to do the right thing.  I already know how the liberal judges are going to vote.    

I’ll continue to keep you posted.     

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑