YESTERDAY, in another tour de force, Daniel Miller set out in The Conservative Woman the political and moral case for Donald Trump not conceding the US presidential election. Trump bears a huge historical responsibility for more than 70million Americans who voted for him against the coalition of big media, big money and big tech and a national security establishment, which now constitutes the ruling powers of the Democratic Party. The integrity of the American government – indeed of the American Republic – is based on the credibility of the electoral processes.
Daniel Miller is far from alone in calling these into question, and allegations of malpractice have not ceased since we previously reported on the topic.
‘Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory,’ the Federalist queried yesterday. ‘[He] was so effective at animating voters in 2020 that he received a record number of votes, more than 15million more than Barack Obama received in his re-election of 2012. Amazingly, he managed to secure victory while also losing in almost every bellwether county across the country. No presidential candidate has been capable of such electoral jujitsu until now.’
This, when the sums so patently do not add up, is curious to say the least. You can read the full article here.
In the meantime, the current status of the state-by-state US Election results remain unreported here. For an accurate update you can do no better than consult the Epoch Times page here for the details of the challenges in each of the disputed states.
As to the President’s realistic chances of re-election which the MSM choose to dismiss completely, Alan Dershowitz, the distinguished Harvard law professor, is less sure. In this interview on Fox Business News a few days ago, he set out the constitutional paths to victory that Trump has and which cannot be discounted
For example, he states: ‘In Pennsylvania, they have two very strong legal arguments. One, that the courts changed what the legislature did about counting ballots after the end of Election Day. That’s a winning issue in the Supreme Court. I don’t necessarily support it, but it’s a winning issue in the Supreme Court.’
He goes on: ‘The other legal theory they have, which is a potentially strong one, is that the computers, either fraudulently or by glitches, changed hundreds of thousands of votes. There are enough votes to make a difference, but I haven’t seen the evidence to support that. So, in one case, they don’t have the numbers. In another case, they don’t seem yet to have the evidence, maybe they do. I haven’t seen it. But the legal theory is there to support them if they have the numbers and they have the evidence.’
You can read a full account of the interview in the Washington Examiner here.
There is another account in the Epoch Times here.
Also worth reading is an article on this most brazen of ‘heists’ by veteran Republican Newt Gingritch here.