Politico, The Lawsuits That Could Decide the 2020 Election

[Editor’s note: This guy is very smart but has missed the boat at least twice: the 2016 election was massively rigged for Hillary, as the request by Jill Stein for recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, in particular, revealed; and voter fraud using mail-in ballots occurs frequently.  Check out the second Need to Know (4 August 2020) and the premier (3 August 2020), for an overview of how things stand with the greatest scam in world history.]

It’s not hard to imagine that in two months’ time, broad swaths of the country will be mired in Florida 2000-style chaos.

The pandemic is transforming the ways Americans will cast their ballots. Under-resourced election officials are straining to update voting processes in time, with fewer in-person polling locations and greater reliance on mail-in balloting. The president has repeatedly spread false claims that absentee voting is rife with fraud. Slow counts of those absentee ballots could very plausibly lead to replays of the infamous “Brooks Brothers riot”—when hordes of gray-suited DC-based Republican staffers descended on the Sunshine State—at election offices throughout the country.

“The pandemic is a once-in-a-century change in circumstances,” says Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount who specializes in election law. “And in many ways, continuing the status quo as if the world hasn’t changed is its own way to restrict voting.”

But those changes in long-familiar voting procedures have led to a bumper crop of lawsuits that could blow up into mini Bush v. Gore-style cases that further rupture the divide. Already, the pandemic-inspired election changes have prompted the filing of at least 228 lawsuits, according to Levitt, who tracks the litigation on his website.

And where the 2000 election was decided with a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that ended the Florida recount and prompted Al Gore to concede and accept the legitimacy of the ruling even as he disagreed with it, it’s hard to imagine President Donald Trump voicing similar faith in the process if he loses in November.

“Remember, this is a president who claimed that there was a massive fraud in an election he won,” says Levitt. “We have had peaceful transitions of power because We, the People, have believed that it is possible that more people who disagree with us actually cast ballots—that the possibility exists that we might be in a minority. And if that is not even a conceptual possibility, that’s a real danger to democracy and to the election process. If you cannot conceive that you might be in the minority, there’s no possibility of achieving change through voting nor of achieving legitimacy through voting.”

Levitt, for his part, doesn’t think a Brooks Brothers riot is any more likely in 2020 than it was in 2000, but says there’s good reason for concern.

“The more the president attempts to suggest without evidence that the election is being stolen, the more that people feel like they’ve been aggrieved and need to take the process outside of the normal dispute-resolution mechanisms,” Levitt says.

He wants to remind people that the courts are one of those mechanisms. “There are always miniature Bush v. Gore cases, they just don’t always decide the presidency,” says Levitt. “They happen in every election cycle, usually in a race way down the ballot. It’s just you never hear about them.”

What do those 200+ lawsuits look like? Are we hyperventilating about this needlessly? And what pieces of litigation concern actual experts on voting rights? With early voting just days away from starting and Election Day two months away, POLITICO spoke to Levitt to sort through it all. A transcript of that conversation is below, condensed and edited for length and clarity.

Stanton: In terms of election lawsuits already in the works, what are we seeing?

Levitt: We’re seeing a lot. And we’re seeing it much earlier this year than past cycles—and that might well be a good thing. In part, that’s because when the pandemic arrived, it arrived during the primaries. And it arrived in a way where some executive and legislative officials were willing to make changes, some weren’t, and some couldn’t because the relevant rules are embedded in state constitutions and aren’t susceptible to change. And so, unsurprisingly, when we have circumstances that have really changed and rules that can’t change or don’t, people run to the courts—one other agent we have to modify rules for particular circumstances. And this once-in-a-century pandemic is a very particular circumstance.

We also got evidence in real time about how the pandemic would affect voting in the primaries. This was far less speculative than some cases are. In many ways, we knew which problems were encountered, and that gave the courts firmer footing to rule earlier in the cycle than we might otherwise see—we were getting decisions in June, July and August, when there’s still time to implement them, rather than waiting until October and running into chaos.

“Unsurprisingly, when we have circumstances that have really changed and rules that can’t change or don’t, people run to the courts.”

Stanton: You track the number of election-related lawsuits that have been filed. I understand that we’re now well above 150 cases?

Levitt: It was 226 the last time I checked. It’s moving very quickly.

Stanton: In terms of the number of voters potentially affected by these lawsuits, what are we talking about?

Levitt: Actually, I have to apologize: It’s 228 cases, and I haven’t added a couple, so it’s probably 230. It’s difficult to track. How many voters does this affect? I don’t honestly know. The better way to measure is this: There’s litigation now in 43 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico. And in a way, the litigation affects all of the voters in each of those states, not because it’s contesting the conditions that every voter will use to cast their ballots, but because it alters the framework under which the elections are held. Even a case that’s about just one candidate getting on the ballot affects the choices of who people will be able to vote for.

By the way, I’m tracking the pandemic-related election cases. But there are other cases, including a big one in Florida, that aren’t about the pandemic. So that is not to suggest that the states that aren’t on this particular list are free of election litigation; they just happen to be free of litigation based around the pandemic.

The second category has to do with mail-in ballots. Some of these lawsuits would’ve been brought in nonpandemic times. There is a string of litigation about how people get notified of mistakes in the absentee process—mismatches in signatures that voters sign to their absentee envelopes, which are then matched against their signatures in elections officials’ records—and whether they have a chance to fix those mistakes. Litigation about the absentee process picked up speed considerably when it became clear that far more of the public is going to vote by mail this year than normal. In 2016, I think about a quarter of ballots nationwide were cast by mail. So you see litigation over deadlines for mail-in ballots, or provisions about assisting people with ballots, or opportunities for voters to correct mistakes, or the excuse you may need to provide to vote absentee, or postage on absentee ballots, or the witnesses and notaries required by some states.

“The fight this election cycle has never been about moving literally everybody to vote by mail.”

The third category has to do with in-person voting. Even in states that are “universal” vote-by-mail, you almost always have an option to go down to the county office and drop off a ballot in person or fill out a ballot in person. It’s not truly universal vote-by-mail; it just means everybody has the option. The fight this election cycle has never been about moving literally everybody to vote by mail; it’s about increasing the opportunities to vote by mail to mitigate serious capacity constraints for those who have to vote in person. Just like there are people who are hard to count in the Census, there are people who are hard to mail, and populations that really depend on in-person voting—very rural and very urban, minority communities, those who face issues like language access, people with disabilities. So there’s litigation over the hours of early voting, over curbside voting opportunities, over the availability of dropboxes and other in-person places to return the ballot. And those lawsuits are almost entirely pandemic-related.

And then the fourth category is pushback back against all the other three: that the administration of the election shouldn’t change. The other three categories have to do with people asking the courts to change or modify the rules for this election because of the pandemic and because of changed circumstances. Sometimes, elected officials or legislatures have changed the rules, and this litigation is pushing back against those changes, mostly under the notion that the officials or legislatures have overstepped and may not have the authority to make the changes they’ve made.

Stanton: What are the most potentially consequential election lawsuits in the works?

Levitt: It really depends on how long your view is. There are cases where ballot initiatives to reform redistricting in states have been tossed off the ballot because they came in short of the number of required signatures because of the pandemic. If they had made it on the ballot, would those have changed the redistricting process, which changes the political landscape in a state for the next 10 years? Maybe. So, from one point of view, it’s enormously consequential long-term. From another point of view, it doesn’t affect the conditions of voting in the November election itself. It depends on your time horizon.

In terms of the way people vote, I think some of the more consequential cases are likely to be involve the opportunity to correct mistakes—sometimes mistakes by election officials, sometimes mistakes by the voters. And this is something I flagged because of a series of cases that aren’t specific to the pandemic, but definitely picked up speed and volume. They have to do with getting notice of a problem and getting the opportunity to fix it—core, basic fundamental legal concepts. “Procedural due process” is the legal name for it. Nonlawyers will recognize it as basic fairness: If you’re going to throw out my ballot, tell me why and give me a chance to fix the problem before you do.

There are more opportunities for unintentional error both by voters and by election officials in the mail-ballot process than with in-person voting. And as a consequence, the increase in voting by mail across the board increases the importance of these “notice and cure” procedures and the lawsuits to make sure that procedures are in place. More people will be voting using a system that’s less familiar to them personally, and election officials will have to work harder and faster to process many more things in a short amount of time. Both of those things are a recipe for predictable mistakes, which aren’t a problem as long as there’s a way to fix them. Those lawsuits may seem like a small thing over small procedural steps, but they may be among the most important in terms of the number of ballots cast and processed.

With respect to voting in the general election, there’s another “it depends”: It depends whether the case is consequential based on what it is arguing in theory, or whether it’s likely to work in practice. There are some cases asking for a fairly mammoth reconfiguration of local election practices, both to restrict access and to improve access—different cases in different places. Each is unlikely to succeed. Courts don’t like micromanaging all the aspects of an election. There are discrete elements that courts will address, but they don’t like putting themselves in charge of an election administration. And getting this close to an election, we’re just running out of time to make very big changes to the process. Those cases would be enormously consequential if they yielded an outcome, but it’s extremely unlikely they’re going to.

There are also cases that are brought by the political parties, either the Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee and their affiliated parties, as well as the campaigns themselves. I don’t believe the Biden campaign has brought a case yet.

Stanton: But the Trump campaign has.

Levitt: They have. Three come to mind right off the bat. And those cases may be consequential not only in what they’re asking for, but in telling you where the major political parties seem to have priorities.

Stanton: One of the cases the Trump campaign filed is about restricting the number and location of drop-off boxes for absentee ballots in Pennsylvania, right?

Levitt: It’s about a bunch of stuff in Pennsylvania, drop-off boxes included—about whether there can be dropboxes, about whether individuals can poll watch at dropboxes, and a number of other procedures Pennsylvania put in place that the Trump campaign doesn’t like.

I should say that there are three suits that I’m aware of where the Trump campaign has brought the case in its own name. But they or the RNC have intervened in cases others have brought, as defense. When you see a party put its own name on a case, or when you see a campaign put its name a case, that is also a political statement about what they want you to know specifically they are fighting about. So it’s of messaging importance in addition to the legal importance attached to it.

Stanton: In the Pennsylvania case about ballot drop-off boxes, what is the basis for their case?

Levitt: The political basis or the legal basis?

Stanton: You can go either way.

Levitt: In terms of the political basis, the Trump campaign has claimed not only that there’s a particularized legal problem, but also that the implemented election measures open the opportunity for widespread fraud. This is very much in keeping with the president’s own messaging—founded or unfounded, warranted or unwarranted—about opportunities for widespread fraud.

In these instances, in addition to the narrow legal claim that the campaign is making—some of which has merit, some which are not crazy thoughts—there’s the messaging reinforcement: The Trump campaign wants you to know that these measures may increase the potential for fraud. I say, “wants you to know that,” but I don’t actually believe that these measures significantly increase the potential for widespread fraud. If you ask election officials, across the board they will tell you that they know how to run secure elections, and that while there are always opportunities for individual glitches or mistakes or even wrongdoing, the system is pretty secure against widespread fraud. And from all available evidence, they’re right. Nevertheless, the Trump campaign wants to put out a different message.

Stanton: Looking at the lawsuits still in play, which ones give you the most concern?

Levitt: Ah, that’s such a good question. There are particular resolutions I’m angry about. There are particular battles that I think are important. There are cases where I fear that relief that has been granted correctly will be overturned or paused. And there are cases where people have asked for tremendous changes, and where I’d be worried if they got what they were asking for, but I don’t think they’re going to get what they’re asking for. Among the 228 lawsuits, it’s hard to pick a favorite or least favorite child. [Laughter]

Stanton: You have an expertise in voting rights. You worked on the issue at the Department of Justice. If you were trying to restrict voting through lawsuits, what would you be doing at this point in time?

“The pandemic is a once-in-a-century change in circumstances. And in many ways, continuing the status quo as if the world hasn’t changed is its own way to restrict voting.”

Levitt: Honestly, there aren’t many ways that the courts have accepted to clamp down on present procedures. The main claim for clamping down on present procedures, is “these procedures cause fraud”—lots of screaming, all caps. Whatever the efficacy of that position in the court of public opinion, the courts that are actually courts demand evidence. So I don’t know that there’s much utility in using the courts to restrict voting if we’re starting from the status quo.

But the pandemic is a once-in-a-century change in circumstances. And in many ways, continuing the status quo as if the world hasn’t changed is its own way to restrict voting.

The world has changed around us. Many officials in many places have acknowledged that. Some have not. Some can’t, because their state’s constitution embeds rules that aren’t pandemic-appropriate, and sometimes state actors have no legal ability to resolve those problems outside of the courts. But pretending that everything is the same in 2020 as in prior years actually amounts to an effort to restrict the vote, because everything is most definitely not the same in 2020 as it’s been in prior years. There are plenty of ways outside of the courts, unfortunately, to constrict the ability to vote. In the courts, the most efficacious way to constrict votes is not to ask for a change in current processes, it’s precisely to fight back against changes in a world that requires a different approach to voting than we’ve had in the past.

Stanton: Talk about that different approach. In light of the pandemic, what needs to change about voting?

Levitt: Three things—and a fourth is the predicate to changing any of it: money. Unlike the federal government, most local officials can’t spend money they don’t have. We’re getting to the point where if they don’t get the money they need, they may not be able to do what is necessary before the election.

What are the three things that really need to change? One, we need to recognize that in-person voting capacity will be limited—not unavailable, but limited. Locations won’t offer themselves as polling locations and poll workers won’t come to the polls to the same degree they have in the past. That means a shift to accommodate alternatives to in-person voting, which means voting by mail. That has to happen. People have to be encouraged to vote by mail, if they can, in order to relieve the pressure on in-person voting.

When you have zero poll workers, there’s nobody to open the door. You can’t vote in person. This is not just an urban problem in any way.

One really vivid example of this came in Wisconsin’s primary. A lot of attention was put on the fact that in Milwaukee, 185 polling places were originally planned, but only five opened on the actual day of the election. That’s appalling and the result of the pandemic—poll workers and locations canceled last minute. What was far less publicized is that there were 100 small rural towns the week before Election Day in Wisconsin that had zero poll workers. And when you have zero poll workers, there’s nobody to open the door. You can’t vote in person. This is not just an urban problem in any way. This is a problem that affects all of us, just like the pandemic affects all of us.

The second big change is reconfiguring the in-person experience so that it is safe and as efficient as possible to move a large number of people through a smaller number of spaces. And sometimes that means creativity in the polling locations. We recently saw the NBA deciding to make all of its arenas available as elections centers. That’s wonderful. That’s not the solution, but that is part of a solution. We need creativity like that in locating and staffing polling places with depleted resources so that polling places are equitably located.

And the third big change is communication about all of this. The ways in which people vote may be different than in the past. Communication and clarity about exactly what that means is incredibly important. There has to be more of it, more clearly in more channels and more media than before, from election officials, from campaigns, from nonprofits, letting people know how to deal with the two other changes.

Stanton: On that topic of officials communicating about the election, President Trump has said mail-in voting is rife with fraud and that is, in effect, a way that the election will be stolen from him. I was in high school during the 2000 election, but I remember watching the Florida recount and seeing Republicans’ so-called Brooks Brothers riot that disrupted the count and made it seem like elections officials had a thumb on the scale in favor of Al Gore. Given Trump’s statements and the fact November will see a slower ballot count than past elections, what is the potential for mini Brooks Brothers riots at election offices across the country?

“This is a president who claimed that there was a massive fraud in an election he won.”

Levitt: I think it’s as small as it was in 2000. Which is to say: It happened, but it was only a few dozen people, and it disrupted the count, but not tremendously. There is certainly concern about groups and individuals seeking to influence the electoral process outside of the normal rules. Do I think it’s likely? Not particularly. But there’s concern about it for good reason.

The more the president attempts to suggest without evidence that the election is being stolen, the more that people feel like they’ve been aggrieved and need to take the process outside of the normal dispute-resolution mechanisms. And there are a bunch of those mechanisms. There are administrative mechanisms. There are judicial ones. And then there is taking to the streets.

Remember, this is a president who claimed that there was a massive fraud in an election he won, without any proof whatsoever that the fraud actually existed. I have no doubt that he will be loudly screaming about massive fraud come November, whether he wins or loses. What people choose to do with that is a different matter.

There’s another aspect of communication we should all get used to: There will be a number of states where we don’t know the outcome of the election on election night. It may not be that the states are too close to call. It may be that they’re too early to call—where we just don’t know the answer, not where the answer is unknowable. The fact that we may not know the answer on election night doesn’t mean the system’s broken; it means the system is working. It means that we are actually giving the vote counters time to count the votes rather than jumping to conclusions about who won or lost.

We, the People, aren’t very patient. We have to learn to be a little bit more patient than we’re used to. It’s just not in our muscle memory anymore. It used to be, a couple decades ago, that you went to bed on election night and found out who won in the morning. And a couple decades before that, you went to bed on election night and found out next week. The expectation that we know who won on election night 30 seconds after the polls close is relatively new, and not particularly realistic—and particularly unrealistic in this election. Again, that doesn’t mean that the election teeters in the balance. It could well be that the vote is clear, and we just haven’t been able to count it up yet. It’s really important for all of us to give that process time to work.

“The vote-tallying process is public in the vast majority of states. It is not a secretive, hidden process. … This is not the Illuminati deciding which ballots to put into the box and which ballots take out.”

The vote-tallying process is public in the vast majority of states. It is not a secretive, hidden process. It is open to being watched. There’s a very big difference between people gathering to ensure the integrity of that count, which is fine, and people gathering to disrupt the integrity of that count, which was in part the Brooks Brothers riot. This is not the Illuminati deciding which ballots to put into the box and which ballots take out of the box. It’s a number of extremely patriotic, extremely civic-minded officials, usually working at close to volunteer wages, who are simply counting up the ballots in as best and neutral fashion as they know.

Stanton: Part of that transparency in the ballot count, of course, is the legal process. Do you think that there’s a likelihood that there are going to be sort of miniature Bush v. Gore-type cases happening throughout the country?

Levitt: There are always miniature Bush v. Gore cases, they just don’t always decide the presidency. Court cases are part of the dispute-resolution mechanism. And they happen in every election cycle, usually in a race way down the ballot. It’s just you never hear about them.

“There are always miniature ‘Bush v. Gore’ cases, they just don’t always decide the presidency. … You never hear about them.”

Bush v. Gore came down to 537 votes in one tipping-point state. That’s a very small margin. We all focused on hanging chads, but that election was overdetermined. The margin of error vastly exceeded the margin of victory, based on a bunch of different things. There were problems at the polls. There were problems with registration. There were problems with purges of the voter rolls. There were problems with the butterfly ballot. There were problems with military ballots. There were problems with absentee ballots. These are little tiny problems that, in the normal course, would have been litigated and fought over, but wouldn’t determine a presidency. And it all mattered on a global scale because the presidency was in doubt.

Stanton: Final question: Bush v. Gore, as you noted, ended with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling and then Al Gore conceding and talking about the need to accept the results of the process, even if he disagreed with the way it turned out. That sort of concession requires you to have some real belief in the importance of the process—some reverence for the rule of law. If President Trump loses reelection, it’s difficult to imagine him doing a similarly magnanimous concession and saying that we should trust in the process.

Levitt: Yes, it is difficult.

Stanton: And you note that the courts are a way to resolve these disputes. But lawsuits also presuppose that the results of due process lend legitimacy to the outcome. And if you question the very basis of that legitimacy, I’m wondering if that makes it more likely that people—Trump supporters, if he loses; or Democrats, if it plays out the other way—I wonder if that actually makes it more likely that people feel like they had something stolen from them, if not for these pesky judges. And then what the effect of all of that is on public faith in institutions and the rule of law.

Levitt: That’s the question you’re ending on?! [Laughter] So, yeah, that sort of magnanimity not only depends on faith in the process and faith in institutions, but regard for anything other than yourself. And that is a quality that we have seen lacking, unfortunately, in the current holder of the presidency. There is no question that the president’s rhetoric has consequences, including consequences on what his followers and others believe. And there is no question, if you look at his record, that he has shown not only disregard, but disdain, for the rule of law. That’s unfortunate, because that contributes to the view that some people have about the stakes in this election, and that because of those stakes, if they don’t win, something might have been stolen from them.

“If you cannot conceive that you might be in the minority, there’s no possibility of achieving change through voting nor of achieving legitimacy through voting.”

I don’t think it’s unique to “stolen by judges.” The rhetoric the president has used implies that if he doesn’t win, it’s been stolen by “fill in the blank.” That is profoundly dangerous. And I don’t want to minimize the danger of that at all. We have had peaceful transitions of power because We, the People, have believed that it is possible that more people who disagree with us actually cast ballots—that the possibility exists that we might be in a minority. And if that is not even a conceptual possibility, that’s a real danger to democracy and to the election process. If you cannot conceive that you might be in the minority, there’s no possibility of achieving change through voting nor of achieving legitimacy through voting. So that is scary.

Donald Trump is not the only one on the ballot on Election Day. And in the past, we have had figures claim fraud or impropriety in the results receiving pushback where their claims are unwarranted, including from members of their own party. Again, Donald Trump is not the only one on the ballot. There are a lot of figures in public office who are used to both winning and losing, and who believe in the importance of the process.

No matter what the result of the election, if there is no reason to believe there was widespread fraud, it will be important for officials of both parties to say so and say so loudly, because the person with the biggest megaphone in the United States has a history of making claims without basis and evidence that tend to destabilize the whole process. That will be as much a part of their legacy as whether they win or lose their individual races.

Please follow and like us:

29 thoughts on “Politico, The Lawsuits That Could Decide the 2020 Election”

  1. Looks like Trump doesn’t care much about Freedom of Press.

    He’s good on everything else though.

    (except for maybe 911 truth, swamp draining, assassinating foreign leaders, immigration control, granting green cards, wall building, controlling the NSA, balancing the budget, replacing Obamacare, restoring election integrity, et. al.)


  2. The fact that this article appeared in Politico and it includes the line “The more the president attempts to suggest without evidence that the election is being stolen” says it all. Mail-in balloting is inherently fraudulent–are poll workers handling tens of millions of ballots forensic hand-writing experts who could wrangle over each signature? Mail-in vote-harvesting is a proven fact (e.g., Texas’s 100,000), and mail-in balloting is both fraudulent and massively error-prone (e.g., this year’s primaries), etc. For obvious reasons, only one nation outside of the USA has widespread mass mail-in balloting–the UK, with its own electoral fraud. The sad thing is the US has become one of the most undemocratic nations of the industrialized world.

      1. To figure what out…that there will be and always has been massive fraud with mail in ballots?
        OR that the US has become one of the most undemocratic nations of the industrialized world?

        The answer to the first is obvious…he has spoken of it in conferences constantly.

        The answer to the second …is this not what he has been fighting since day one of his presidency?
        …or has that been my imagination?

  3. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

    Six months ago, in my wildest imagination, would I have ever considered the possibility of a coup against the POTUS. Never! THAT cannot possibly happen.This is the United States of America. Those things do not happen here. WE are not a third world country. We are not banana republic. We ARE a republic (IF we can keep it) that has now lasted 244 years. Then Covid was thrust upon us  like two towers collapsing into their own footprint. BLM and ANTIFA started destroying many major cities with impunity as the police were told to stand down and some actually assisted in the destruction. I saw the Democratic  house (and some Republicans) take a knee to BLM, disgustingly supporting the destruction of property and life. There was a time an action of that nature would never be considered or tolerated. There was a respect for our country from both sides of the aisle that has now disappeared, as there was a respect for our system of voting; a winner was a winner and the entire country got behind the victor. That dignity and that respect is gone. THAT among many other behaviors is the sign of a country in a deep, and what may be a  bottomless crisis.
    The Democrats have been relentless, lawless and unyielding in their continuously futile attempts to unsit a fairly elected POTUS. They have use every trick in the book and failed miserably. They turned to violence, destruction, killing and supporting defunding the police in a diabolical effort to continue those attempts and even that has met with strong public feedback. They just will not cease their efforts despite public outcry. Why? Because these efforts do not represent the popular view. They are being forced upon us through outside influences, like Soros, Communist China and yes, even Bill Gates.
    With the help of the totally compromised and corrupt MSM, they would have you think this is the popular view. IT IS NOT, but such is the power of  a bought and paid for TV and a  press long ago influenced by Zionist control. Social media makes no secret of their censorship of conservative views through banning Facebook, YouTube and Twitter posts. They’ll admit it at congressional hearing and nothing changes…..have those hearings ever made any difference ever even prior to our present debacle? Not once. It’s a dog and pony show and all that changes are the characters. The third act is always the same.
    In the past, the public could boycott those companies that monopolized a product. No longer. Social media is so embedded in
    the average users psyche, that withdrawing would present the same symptoms of withdrawing from a heroin addiction. Don’t believe that? Take  a cell phone away from a teenager and see what happens; tears and emotional  chaos.

    This country is in big trouble; more than ever. We are in the middle of a crisis never before encountered in 244 years.  
    It’s not happenstance. This has been planned for countless years. If one were to look for a starting point, it may well have arguably been November 22nd, 1963 which unfortunately and probably inevitably lead to our accepting the physics defying event of September 11th, 2001. America is in the end game of a ritual. We are on the sacrificial alter of a power and an influence we cannot see and only speculate as to its identity. We are being destroyed right in front of our collective faces and have little idea how to stop it. 

    And now, we are even being told if the incumbent POTUS is elected, the opposing party and powers, including the MILITARY, will not accept the outcome. This is a country not only entertaining madness and chaos, but apparently descending into the dark pit of irrevocable  reservation.
    A very important read from Zero Hedge:
    A quote from the article…((The leaked report from the exercise darkly concluded that “technocratic solutions, courts, and reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here,” promising that what would follow the November election would be “a street fight, not a legal battle.”))


    1. You can thank the Jew 5th column for this.

      This is what they have done historically in every country they have infiltrated—- before they are kicked out.

      Americans are too stupid to kick them out.

      Americans can’t even see that Trump is their servant—- for the money of course.

      1. If I saw a glass half full , I would say it was half full. But I don’t see anything close to that.
        I don’t have any agenda; I detest all politicians. This system just doesn’t work any more.

        Is Trump preferable to Biden? Marginally. And only because he is not a professional politician. I am endlessly amused by Trump’s tweets and his bashing of the Jew media. I love that. But there is no substance to it. It’s all talk.

        Because as I have pointed out again and again, Trump is little more than a salesman, a con man and a liar. And when push comes to shove, Trump is interested in Trump and his Jewish masters, not you. Claim all you want that moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem is a “great accomplishment’. It’s not. Trump’s actual record is an embarrassment.

        But as the article cited in my post indicates, this is all moot. The country is too far gone. There is nothing left to salvage. We are reduced to waiting around for the Fed to print the dollar out of existence (the economy practically doesn’t exist anymore) while enduring the Covid19 hoax and George Soros trashing the cities with BLM. If you can see any light at the end of this tunnel you have more imagination than me.

        The good news is that the rest of the world, and a lot of people in the US, will be happy to see the US Empire gone. People are mind controlled now to the extent that they don’t realize they are slaves to their own government. There will be a reality check when the Jew World Order technocracy takes over. And when that happens there might just be a revolution because it will be crystal clear there is nothing left to lose. Because by then, a tiny Jewish minority will own everything, and the currency will be worth nothing.

        Go ahead and read the post by Charles Hugh Smith.

      2. Think about it…….

        “Those who remain loyal to Trump can only do so by ignoring his constant flip-flops and capitulations. “He’s playing 8,000D chess!” “Keep your enemies closer!” Or they’ll claim the president has no authority. Which begs the question then of why any hopes are pinned on him, or any other president.

        At this point, it is what it is; Trump is a grand tweeter, taking on the odious establishment with often incisive and biting comments. In terms of policies, this hasn’t meant much. It’s been neocon Republican business as usual during his term in office. Illegals aren’t being deported. Visa workers are still being hired. The crumbling infrastructure remains untouched. The troops remain in countries where they don’t belong. Not a single Deep State villain has been prosecuted.”


        1. It really is a joke:

          “This election, which we are assured once again will be the “most important” one ever, boils down to a referendum on Donald Trump’s personality. The issues that really impact the lives of the 80% being railroaded by the rigged system will be ignored again, as they have been in every previous presidential election. Except for 2016, when Trump’s populist rhetoric brought things like “globalism” and immigration to the forefront of the discourse.

          There will be no debate about the great 9/11 lie, and the unconstitutional niceties, like the Patriot Act and Homeland Security department, that followed. I don’t think even Trump will have the audacity to talk about illegal immigrants and Visa workers, given his lack of effort in those areas. No one will talk about peace, or the sprawling Military Industrial / Intelligence Complex, unless Trump makes another insincere threat to bring the troops home from somewhere. The disparity of wealth will only be touched upon in a broad, meaningless way by the Democrats who still despise the greatest champion the common people ever had, Huey Long.”

          1. Ralph, I am beginning to worry about you. You seem to have swallowed the Progressive Line on Trump, hook, line and sinker. That is not good.

        2. Surely you realize that’s completely bogus. His accomplishments run as long as your arm. (Search for them!) They include appointing two Associate Justices to the Supreme Court, taking the economy to heights never before attained (and in the process, giving Blacks and Latinos the highest rate of wage growth in history), on and on and on. Moreover, he has not initiated any new wars or (even) military engagements. I am disgusted anyone would take claims like those seriously, which I do not mean to impute to you, Ralph. For more, check out NeedToKnow (6 September 2020) with Giueseppe Vafanculo, where Trump’s approval rating has soared to 52%–and which may be expected to rise higher. My prediction is a landslide for Trump taking between 40 and 49 states: (6 September 2020) with Giuseppe Vafanculo. Trump’s approval rating has soared to 52% and will no doubt rise even higher. Soros appears to have picked the VP nominee for the Democratic Party. It ought to change its name for truth in advertising. The Democrats are destroying themselves.

          1. I think all of these clowns are idiots, including Donald Trump.

            Didn’t Trump sanction the assassination of the Iranian General Qassem in Iraq for his Israeli masters? That in itself is unforgivable.

            Am I confused about this? Why would the US kill an Iranian general?

            Do Trump’s ties to rich American Jews, Jewish bankers, and Israel bother you at all?

            I don’t get it. Trump was even photographed wearing a mask the other day……….

          2. I have taken strenuous exception to his actions related to Israel, including a great general who had done more for Middle East peace than anyone else in the region. We are dealing with choices and there really is no room for doubt that, in spite of his obvious flaws, Trump is better than Biden. We live in a complex world, where we have to deal with realities and not indulge in fantasies. I regard Trump as doing a lot of good for America.

  4. Although I am not always in favor of Mike Adams articles, he may have a valid point here. Is this Trumps ace in the hole? The 14th Amendment. (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/)


    From the article:

    Trump’s “secret weapon” revealed: Fourteenth Amendment allows the President to strip Electoral College votes from states supporting censorship against voters; enables mass arrests of mayors, governors and judges who support BLM

    Sunday, September 06, 2020 by: Mike Adams

    Trump’s “secret weapon” revealed: Fourteenth Amendment allows the President to strip Electoral College votes from states supporting censorship against voters; enables mass arrests of mayors, governors and judges who support BLM

    (Natural News) The results of the 2020 election are already locked in: Trump wins, and he goes on to dismantle the corrupt, criminal Democrat party that tried (and failed) to destroy America and replace it with a communist regime of left-wing authoritarian tyrants.

    How does Trump accomplish this?

    President Trump has a “secret weapon” that I’ve been talking about for several months in Health Ranger Report podcasts on Brighteon.com. Until recently, I didn’t know the exact nature of the secret weapon but was told by highly reliable sources that plans were already in place for Trump to defeat the Democrats and protect America from left-wing efforts to destroy this nation.

    Now we’ve been able to confirm the content of this “secret weapon” that will be invoked to save America. It’s the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
    How the Fourteenth Amendment grants Trump the power to strip power away from treasonous domestic enemies

    The Fourteenth Amendment — see the full text here — speaks directly to the powers of the federal government in dealing with officials, individuals and states that are engaged in “rebellion” against the United States of America.

    Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment grants the U.S. President the power to:

    Arrest and indefinitely hold all public officials — including mayors, governors, state legislators, federal judges and law enforcement officials — who support “rebellion” against the United States or who have “given aid or comfort” to the enemies of America. (Section 3)
    Eliminate House of Representatives positions for California and other states which are engaged in supporting Big Tech censorship platforms that are supporting rebellion against the United States of America and “abridging” the right of voting-aged citizens to participate in elections (via censorship). This implies that Electoral College votes would also be proportionally reduced in these states. (Section 2)
    Eliminate all federal financial support for cities and states which are engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. Section 3 specifically states that all such claims of federal money obligations to the states “shall be held illegal and void.” (Section 4)

    In essence, the Fourteenth Amendment grants American citizens “equal protection” under law, but for public officials or states which are engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, those equal protections are revoked.

    The Democrats already know all this, which is why they are pursuing a plan of election chaos, hoping to throw the entire election process into mass confusion, from which they plan to attempt an illegal coup to eliminate Trump from office and claim political power over the nation.

    Many Democrat-run states are already in open rebellion, aiding and comforting illegal insurrectionists who are attempting to overthrow the United States government

    It should be rather obvious that at this very moment, California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Illinois and many other states are engaged in open rebellion against the United States, and that thousands of public officials within those states — mayors, governors, state legislators, police chiefs, etc. — are granting “aid or comfort” to the rebellion.

    Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump merely needs to declare an insurrection, then he can have Mayor Lightfoot (Chicago), Mayor Wheeler (Portland), Mayor Durkan (Seattle) and even de Blasio (NYC) arrested and removed from office for violating their oaths of office. All those mayors (and many more) have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, but they have violated their oaths, and under the Fourteenth Amendment that means they have nullified their own right to equal protection under the law.


    Fourteenth Amendment

    Section 1

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Section 3

    No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Section 4

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    Section 5

    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    1. Yes, of course. Trump has a “secret weapon” that he is going to use any day now. Just wait patiently a little bit longer. The time is not quite right yet. But it’s going to happen. Guaranteed!

      Trump is going to put the criminals in jail (Hillary will be the very first one) and fix everything. Just be patient.


  5. Every day I become more confident in the bright future of America. I pray that Donald Trump’s team is working around the clock to stop election fraud. I can’t imagine there is not a dedicated team working on this. Now think about this my friends of Fetzer… Donald won the election in spite of having zero control on the actual process. Now he has a bit of influence to ensure it’s legit. You must know or at least consider that 5 to 10 million illegals voted for Killery in 2016. Maybe it was only 4 million. Whatever it was it was likely way more than Killery’s margin of popular vote victory of a couple million. Would any of you dispute this? Very interesting in hearing from all of the regulars on this question. At any rate, does anyone like Will or Jim or Don think any illegals voted for Trump? It’s possible but pretty far fetched and unlikely there was many that did. What about illegals voting for Killery? Would illegals be just as inclined to vote Biden? please chime in with your opinions, gents.

    At age 58, I become slightly irritated at having to show my license to buy beer. But I have no real problem in doing so. When I go to vote, I want someone to check my license… don’t you? I don’t know how the Dummycrats can justify their aversion to voter ID requirements? When they call showing valid ID Racist it’s like calling Trump a Racist. All evidence to the contrary does not matter. It’s so unfair calling Trump racist or saying he denigrates women. Just look at his campaign manager Colleen Conway who is the first woman to lead a winning Presidential campaign. Fish and Game Dept. Head Aurelia Skipwith. Brilliant women and of color and in their positions based solely on merit verses affirmative action poster child Kamala Harris. So unpopular she would lose an election for school hall monitor.

    Does it look to any of you that the Dummycrats are actively self destructing and driving the undecided straight into Donald’s loving arms? It looks like they are trying to guarantee Trump’s re-election. What does this crowd have to say to the idea that the only way for Biden to win is fraud on a massive scale? Average people don’t want random unprovoked violence. They want safety order and never having to worry what happens to their daughter just walking down the street. Right? It’s insane to think there is any serious number of Americans who want random acts of violence, looting and deranged behavior. It’s got to be less than 1% of the population. Then think about the population that actually votes every election. I bet the number goes down to a tiny fraction of regular voters. How can anyone watching the burning and looting vote Joe Biden? i am telling you this should not just be a landslide for Trump. It’s should be an Earth quake driven Tsunami sweeping him with 75% of the popular vote minimum. Remember how few of these radical maniacs causing havoc actually bother to vote. There was one riot where none of the people arrested were registered to vote anywhere. Think about it. What if we made paying people to riot and loot a capitol offense? Or 20 year minimum sentences for financing terror? Please chime in on comments?

    You all must watch Rob Smith’s Freedom Conference appearance on you tube courtesy of the Steamboat institute. He takes a nuclear blast to the idea Blacks and other minorities are automatically voting Dummycrat. I got to meet him after his presentation and I bought his book. In it he talks about coming out as a Republican 10 times more difficult than when he announced he was gay. Isn’t that funny? He makes a joke out of being the leading Gay Black Republican Activist. Rob is a 5 year Gulf War Veteran who saw actual combat. He spoke of the wearing the uniform as the sniper’s bullseye and how that makes the color of your skin simply not matter and he spoke of his transformation from radically “progressive” to conservative done to the bone and how that happens to many if not most combat veterans over time.

    Rob dissects the tremendous problem of Permanently Aggrieved Vicitmhood training and indoctrination, one of the major forces destroying the fabric of civil society. As long as young people are convinced the system is racist, evil and prevents them from succeeding, their Leaders can convince them destroying it is the only path and so is voting Dummycrat. Her his his brilliant insight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhmbjILiGCc

  6. This is just an anti-Trump article dressed up in fancy clothing. If the ballots are counted correctly – and that’s a big IF – Trump will win. Then the Dems will try to flip the outcome with the mail-in ballots after the election. If they can draw this out long enough, they will be able to put Pelosi in the White House. The fake pandemic has not changed anything with regard to one’s ability to vote, except in terms of one’s perceptions, which are being managed by the MSM and intellectual-style arguments such as these.

  7. Who was sitting at this guys side as he penned this article? Nancy, the witch, Pelosi? Bush was meant to win the 2000 election no matter what. Jeff saw to it. Harris saw to it and finally Scalia. Hillary was meant to win in 2016. Surprise, she did not and then all hell broke loose for the next four years. Google probably helped steal 2018 for the Dems. The covid hoax is more than obviously a leftist/communist/Democrat strategy that was likely waiting in storage to be initiated at the right time. …throwing a wrench in the gears of MAGA and an economic boom never before even imagined. Trump has been attacked from every side incessantly since he won and threw HIS wrench in the gears of corruption, fake news and pedophilia. And HE has no basis and no proof for claiming the election may be stolen. Pulleassee! You cannot be serious.


Leave a Reply