It’s Monday and I have to admit that I hit a low point this past Friday when the Supreme Court refused to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania (22O155). I wrote on my Facebook page,

The Supreme Court just rejected the Texas lawsuit because it didn’t have “standing” i.e. it has no right to interfere in the way other states conduct their elections—even though the way those other states conducted their elections was unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

We are now post-Constitutional. The Supreme Court is effectively irrelevant. Just wait until the GOP loses the two races in Georgia and Chuck Schumer realizes his dream of packing SCOTUS. That’s when it will be official.

Sorry, Ben. We couldn’t keep our Republic.

I find myself vacillating between optimism and pessimism as the election drama plays out. I’d much rather be permanently one or the other. Part of my dilemma is that I can only do my research and reading in the evenings and that’s not enough time for me to keep up with how fast developments evolve. As a budding opinion writer, that has its drawbacks.

However, I spent some time over the weekend trying to understand how some national figures and some of my friends remain absolutely positive that Trump will be sworn in on January 20.

First, the Texas lawsuit was dismissed not on the merits of the case, but on “standing.” That suggests that the charges of election interference could be valid, but someone other than Texas has to bring them. I’ve seen mixed reviews on whether SCOTUS was right to reject the suit (both Alito and Thomas dissented) but in any case, it’s dead in the water for now.

Second, there are still other “pathways” to a second Trump term. Perhaps the most direct one is through the state legislatures in the swing states. They can have their electors give their votes to Trump. However, today is the day the Electoral College meets, and I haven’t seen any news suggesting that the legislature in any of the contested states are going to do so. Maybe we’ll be surprised at how the day plays out.

Another pathway might be through many of the lawsuits that are still pending in state courts and before SCOTUS. Legal challenges continue in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. For an excellent round up, read The Epoch Times‘ summary which is updated regularly.

The other bit of hope that I’ve seen is something that indicates Trump and his administration anticipated this blatant attempt to rig the election two years ago. On September 12, 2018, president Trump signed “Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.” In the first paragraph, Trump establishes the “burning platform”—that is, the motivation for issuing the EO.

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Although there has been no evidence of a foreign power altering the outcome or vote tabulation in any United States election, foreign powers have historically sought to exploit America’s free and open political system. In recent years, the proliferation of digital devices and internet-based communications has created significant vulnerabilities and magnified the scope and intensity of the threat of foreign interference, as illustrated in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with this threat.

In short, Trump says that malicious actors outside the U.S. have an enhanced ability to interfere with United States elections and thereby constitutes a national emergency. Did you know we are still under the “national emergency” declared by president Trump over two years ago? I didn’t.

Most fascinating for this discussion is what comes right after his declaration of a national emergency. In Section 1. (a), the EO says,

Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election. The assessment shall identify, to the maximum extent ascertainable, the nature of any foreign interference and any methods employed to execute it, the persons involved, and the foreign government or governments that authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported it. The Director of National Intelligence shall deliver this assessment and appropriate supporting information to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Again, to sum up, 45 days after a U.S. election the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) must deliver a report to “the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.” That means that the DNI (John Ratcliffe) will deliver a report to these officials this coming Friday, December 18—forty-five days after the November 3 presidential election.

Note what Attorney Lin Wood said in an interview, reported December 1 in The Tennessee Star.

“Dominion originated in Venezuela. It’s a Canadian company. It’s servers were used in Barcelona and in Frankfurt. There’s no question that there will be overwhelming evidence that foreign countries, including China were involved in interfering with our elections.”

Venezuela. Canada. Spain. Germany. China. “Overwhelming evidence.” So what will DNI Ratcliffe’s report reveal?

Note also that Trump sacked Secretary of Defense Mark Esper less than a week after the election and replaced him with Christopher Miller. He then removed nine members of the Pentagon’s Defense Business Board, which “is made up of more than a dozen industry and academic leaders who volunteer to provide independent business advice to Pentagon leadership and are appointed by top Pentagon leaders.” Several others at the Pentagon resigned or were replaced. Coincidence? Unlikely. To me it looks like pieces being moved on a chess board.

Perhaps I’m a bit premature with my “post-Constitutional” declaration, but I’m still not 100 percent convinced that Trump has got this. On the other hand, I feel like I’m watching a brilliant political thriller. Trump has survived so much over the last four years that the “Teflon Don” moniker would be a better fit for him than John Gotti. I’m waiting for the climax when all of the pieces finally come together and the antagonists are defeated.

It would be a shame if the anti-American Left succeeded in defeating Trump through a thoroughly fraudulent election and that’s where the story ended. But most stories don’t end that way, do they?

[Photo by Daniel Minárik on Unsplash]