How to Break through the dishonest fog about denying massive election fraud.

[calfoxwc]

pretty good - wish I had written it..

https://redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2021/01/02/how-to-break-through-the-media-fog-on-the-massive-election-fraud-n302875

What is to be Done? What is desperately needed: A serious person, seen as sober and “above the fray” (a Michael Mukasey, Ken Starr, or Ted Olson-type figure, or possibly the Acting Attorney General or his Deputy), is needed to do what AG Barr should have done: present the facts and the context below, using DoJ, the White House, or the U.S. Senate as a venue. A 30-minute presser, dignified and certain. No Q&A – speak with command of the facts and the room, and then leave the stunned in silence. Here is what must be included:

1. Lay out directly to the American people, with concision and clarity, the main facts: e.g., voter roll imbalances in Blue City precincts, exceeding total population; 144-288k missing mail truck ballots; illegally destroyed vote data and missing chain of custody proof; out of state, underage, duplicate, and otherwise ineligible voters; machines connected to the Internet; unprecedented massive injection of ~$500,000,000 in private funds to pay highly-selected poll workers of, and for, one political party (in an opaque manner). Include reference to the precise number of sworn affidavits from technical, legal, and forensic experts, eye-witnesses, and election officials. This probably is best done using a few broad headings, and then 1-2 egregious and factually-established examples under each (the rest to be referenced as being contained in the available charging/documentation).
2. Lay out the federal charges attaching to each, referencing the sentences, fines, etc. To the extent that there are concomitant state charges, allude to the fact. To the extent there is predicate/reasonable suspicion of a conspiracy, so indicate (RICO, or otherwise; sedition). To the extent there is reasonable suspicion/evidence of foreign influence (whether related to any conspiracy, or otherwise), so state. Have Director of National Intelligence present on stage and speaking when appropriate.
3. Briefly outline the Constitutional issues. Mainly, for this public purpose/announcement, these include: The plenary role of the state legislatures to set the laws regarding elections; the role of Congress in making the relevant determinations regarding electors; and constitutional protections under the Equal protection clause. Only/only after these fact- and law-based issues are explained, there should be a brief hortatory and lofty statement regarding the principles and dangers that are at issue, including:

• Reprise the critical sanctity of the vote and the vital need in our democratic constitutional Republic for citizens to have complete faith in the process and outcome, and in the fairness of the law and its administration, and the courts. It is a defining trait of our national existence. Note the several polls showing that a majority do not have such faith. Some ~70-80% of Republicans, 30% of Democrats, and around 50% of Independents amounting to nearly half of the country think the election was rigged and in favor of Biden; this is a material harm. Never have we faced such a situation. (Gore v. Bush was 1 county in 1 state.)
• Acting today is burdened with costs, but the costs of doing nothing are unacceptably high and will rapidly multiply beyond normal remedy in short order. Hence, immediate action is required. Being agnostic or indifferent as to the law, and specifically to the violations implicated in the several states, does not equate to fairness or to equal protection and justice under the law. Nor is it, under our Constitution, the role of the courts, or of the nation’s top law enforcement official (ultimately the President) to be indifferent to the law. Rather, it is to enforce the Constitution and laws impartially and swiftly and to thereby uphold the integrity of, and respect for, the law.
• Actions taken by state and local officials to establish new election rules, procedures, timelines, verification standards, and the like­­ (or to refuse to enforce selected laws), however arbitrarily or considered­­­­­­­­ – which actions have the intent, or the effect, of circumventing the laws enacted  by the state legislatures, and their assigned sole plenary authority in this regard under the U.S. Constitution – cannot be allowed, by practice, prevalence, administrative or judicial fiat, nor by consent or acclaim, to substitute, as by stealth, for the writ and will of the legislatures.
• To allow such a practice to now establish itself, as if constituting imagined new precedent and fact, and, being more, to then be perceived as fact – or be, by force of this very same political fiat, given legal dressing (g., after the Democrats have gotten rid of the Senate filibuster, added two states to the Union, packed the Supreme Court, changed the way states vote, and gotten rid of the Electoral College) – would do grievous harm to the Constitution, to the rights of the several states thereunder in respect to their election law prerogatives, and to the people of the United States.
• Such fundamental alterations of our constitutional order and national life were nowhere raised in either major Party’s platform, ballot, or referenda, nor were they proposed for submission to the constitutionally established process for considering and acting on Amendments, at any time during this election cycle. In fact, when questions arose about altering the Supreme Court, or adding states, there were dodges and deferrals. To suddenly discover such changes seeded through the miasma of a most contested election outcome is unacceptable.

"