"We
need only establish sufficient evidence to justify an official
investigation. Everyone should be familiar with this very low standard
because it was used to justify the appointment of a Special Counsel to
investigate President Trump in the Russian Collusion Hoax. His enemies
had far less proof of criminal conspiracy (in fact zero proof) than we
have now against the Democrats...investigations for criminal conspiracy usually must proceed on limited
evidence because of the secretive nature of this type of crime... "
"... what
we want at this point (at the very least) is not a conviction of
individuals but the electoral equivalent of a mistrial – the legal
requirement for that being merely “serious procedural error or
misconduct” generally. That standard is met on its face in their refusal
to allow meaningful access by pro-Trump observers, in at least one case
directly defying a court order."
"... the best
outcome (which I expect to occur) would be the simple invalidation of
all ballots received after the close of the polls on election night." - Lawyer Scott Lively
Attorney, author and World Net Daily contributor Scott Lively said from a legal point of view he "expect[ed]" that the Supreme Court will "vindicate Trump's victory" by "the simple invalidation of
all ballots received after the close of the polls on election night":
Why SCOTUS Will Vindicate Trump’s Victory
This
brings me to the matter of Democrat-controlled states “legalizing”
universal ballot mail-outs, and post-election day acceptance of ballots.
I am firmly convinced that the main purpose of this change was to
increase the number of “unclaimed” ballots available to be “harvested”
by the Democrat voter fraud machines in the swing states.
Obviously,
this is a “conspiracy theory” in the truest sense of the word, but that
doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I (along with millions of my fellow
constitutionalists), am in fact alleging conspiracy.
Now, in
response to this well founded theory, and the ever growing body of
evidence in support of it, much has been made by critics of the
president that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that election
fraud was committed.
As an
attorney, I believe that it is, but purely for the sake of argument,
let’s say they’re right. My answer is “So what?” This isn’t (at this
stage) a criminal trial where we must prove our case “beyond a
reasonable doubt” or even establish “clear and convincing evidence.” We
need only establish sufficient evidence to justify an official
investigation. Everyone should be familiar with this very low standard
because it was used to justify the appointment of a Special Counsel to
investigate President Trump in the Russian Collusion Hoax. His enemies
had far less proof of criminal conspiracy (in fact zero proof) than we
have now against the Democrats.
Frankly,
investigations for criminal conspiracy usually must proceed on limited
evidence because of the secretive nature of this type of crime.
In
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee and other voter fraud crime
scenes the left clearly believe they can get away with their ballot
stuffing by ensuring no-one can get close enough to witness what they’re
actually doing in the counting rooms. And they may or may not be
correct as to individual culpability on a case by case basis, because of
the standards of proof in the courtroom.
But what
we want at this point (at the very least) is not a conviction of
individuals but the electoral equivalent of a mistrial – the legal
requirement for that being merely “serious procedural error or
misconduct” generally. That standard is met on its face in their refusal
to allow meaningful access by pro-Trump observers, in at least one case
directly defying a court order.
Additionally,
there is a common law legal principle still heavily used in civil tort
law that has a corollary in deciding logically whether a conspiracy
theory merits investigation. The old legal term for this is the Latin
phrase res ipsa loquitur, “the thing speaks for itself.” Or to translate
this into the common vernacular “it doesn’t pass the smell test.”
However,
as confident as I am that President Trump would win a re-do of the
election in these key states, if such were ordered, that would not be
the best outcome in this situation because the integrity of the election
process itself will be permanently undermined if the bad policies at
issue are not struck down. Least helpful would be recounts, which can
not stop this particular type of fraud because the mail-in ballots have
been separated from the envelopes they arrived in which bear the only
identifying information about the voters. Yes, you can show the envelope
is “from” a dead person but that doesn’t help in adjusting the vote
tally either way.)
The best
outcome (which I expect to occur) would be the simple invalidation of
all ballots received after the close of the polls on election night. I
hope but don’t expect the court to set a clear uniform standard for
future elections that minimizes the potential for fraud. Both of these
are clearly within the power of the court and consistent with
constitutional originalism. [https://www.scottlively.net/]
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the
Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of
Mary
Comments