Bombshell New Legal Memo Giving Trump Supporters Hope on Christmas Eve; Eight ‘Screaming Red Flags’ From The 2020 Election That Deserved Criminal Inquiry, and related 2020 Election stories

By admin On Dec 25, 2020

TWJ Exclusive: Bombshell New Legal Memo Giving Trump Supporters Hope on Christmas Eve:

The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum, written by two prominent conservative legal scholars, essentially verbatim, with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website. This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal, and it, like the first, outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks. Prior to its publication here, it was sent to President Trump. — Ed. note

Overcoming the Court’s Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania

William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney
December 24, 2020

In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever. However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.

Texas v. Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures.

In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.

The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania. —>READ MORE HERE

Eight ‘Screaming Red Flags’ From The 2020 Election That Deserved Criminal Inquiry:

The presidential election is no casual, unimportant event. Polling shows that, today, the public’s confidence in the 2020 elections, polling, law enforcement, media, and government are largely shaken.

For that reason, the widespread claims of election irregularities and fraud should have been taken more seriously by government officials and law enforcement, and promptly and aggressively investigated. Today, there are hundreds of witnesses, declarations, sworn statements, and videos that continue to raise questions about the integrity of the results.

It’s untrue that most of the claims have been dispelled by courts. By and large, there’s been no opportunity for witnesses to testify or present evidence to a judge or jury. More importantly, perhaps, there’s been no way to collect evidence of alleged fraud without the tools of a criminal inquiry, such as subpoenas, depositions, and the ability to compel forensic exams.

If legitimate and transparent investigations were to find the witnesses who claim fraud or irregularities are mistaken or not telling the truth, the inquiries would serve the crucial purpose of assuring the public that the claims were thoroughly investigated but found to be unsupportable or false.