There was a post at American Thinker which I felt was a timely reminder. As posts do at that place, it had already gone into archive and there was no way of accessing comments as they have in place some MeWe commercial thing, not unlike the egregious Disqus - no way am I signing my life away for a "forum".
In short, it is a post by a female journo whom I think may have partly hit it on the head. All is not lost because it is possible for those with a close eye on proceedings to have noticed something and here is what Andrea [Widburg] noticed - it's in the url:
She opened with what seems a sensible stance:
I’ve stayed away from writing about the election audit in Arizona’s Maricopa County because I felt that, until the audit was completed, there wasn’t much point in trying to offering commentary about its progress. The big outlines were known: The audit was being carried out meticulously and both Democrats and NeverTrumpers objected vociferously.
On Monday, though, a conservative reporter with a good reputation revealed some really stunning facts: Several hundred thousand ballots are missing and boxes that purported to hold ballots for counting contained only blanks.
Before we go any further, my attitude as blogger is this - I'm quite sure fraud is going to be established or more specifically, at a minimum, irregularities will be established - the election in that county was fraudulent.
That's what we're sure of on our side of politics looking for some, any good news to stem the tide swamping us in so many ways.
For example, to digress for a few paragraphs, I had news yesterday from a friend, that regular medical treatment was going to be withheld unless the test, if not the jab, was going to be agreed to. I understand the NHS practice had the paperwork poised to be signed. That's the line that particular NHS practice was taking.
Shifting that case onto myself to divert attention, it's as if they're playing some tricky-dicky game of telling every patient that "the practice's" policy is that everyone must be tested before any treatment, "in line with" NHS "recommendations".
This is very difficult to counter, it's certainly not legal as far as we can see but ... how far can we see the legalities? We have no lawyers here and we found out during the Brexit mess that equally august and learned lawyers - Sir This or That - were being opposed by Sirs That or This - one side saying UK law trumped EU and the other saying it was not so - that for this, this and that reason, EU law had precedence.
In other words - a legal quagmire.
And as I commented at the time - it depends completely on who is on the Privy Council or Supreme Court officiating and adjudicating at that moment, on that specific case. In other words - it comes down to whom the place people are - a case can be made for both sides.
Which would go down in the books as the Judgment? Because that becomes the legal precedent, does it not?
Meanwhile, my heart meds would be on hold. The practice, of course, would swear blind they're not "withholding". Just as with my re-entry to Twitter - they're not "stopping" me coming back, they're just demanding my phone number first, just a minor procedural thing, they'd say.
Now in that case, I happen to have found out from the NHS directly, by phone, that they cannot legally do that if they say it is NHS law, which they're not saying, they're simply issuing "guidelines", aren't they? And where I do not physically come into the practice, it's an uneasy truce ... but the first time I need a blood test - the practice can impose whatever it damn well wants, ... in line with NHS "guidelines".
What has this to do with Maricopa? Different country, different state, different county, different legal system, plus state versus Federal. Yet I'd argue that all these cases are the same in this sense - place people "deciding" what is law and what's not.
They did that with Andrew Jackson in 1865 I think it was [I must look that up] but the bottom line was that it was not established until the 1890s that in fact, the actions of those trying him for impeachment were unconstitutional.
In other words, long after the parties were either dead or dying. Are you catching my drift here?
Let's say Maricopa does establish at least partial fraud in that county:
1. As Andrea says - what about the missing ballots? We can't just forget all about the filmed dumping of boxes - hundreds of them, the trucks taking ballots away and losing them, Sidney Powell's affidavits, Giuliani's seemingly deliberate incompetence in handling the affair - remember Sidney was told to leave the WH when she tried to present the evidence.
We cannot even be sure DJT is on the level - not with those gatekeepers around him. He's an old man, easily bullied now.
If you don't buy that last sentence, then look at his actions on January 6th at his speech. In a kindly way, he told the people to all go home. He knew that which the people did not, that massive crowd who'd flown and bussed were seeing realpolitik in action, a far cry from constitutional politics.
2. The precedent can also be seen in the defence line in the now forgotten case of Meredith Kercher in Italy, or more specifically - Knox and the Italian boy.
As I wrote at my now lost site, and it was in some detail - the prosecution was taking the line about the "totality" of evidence winning the day. Meaning that when you took all evidence together - and there was a hell of a lot of it because we had the court transcripts translated - when you took all of it from the timings, the cell phones, the rest of it - it still meant nothing if the judge was not inclined to "totality of evidence".
The defence took the line that each and every single piece of evidence had to be established and if doubt could be thrown on even one piece of evidence, then that automatically negated or threw doubt on all the rest.
And thus it came down to who was the judge? Completely, as we saw.
When the judiciary who'd fought the mafia for years was in charge, then a guilty verdict came in, plus severe penalties. When the other side, Berlusconi's, was in charge, then they took the line of the defence - trying to establish "contamination" and that was game, set and match once a Berlusconi man was in charge.
The highest chamber of the judiciary, the SC 1st Chambers, stated that the "totality" of evidence ruled. The last chambers, the 5th, a lower court, involving a compromised judge, walked in with the brief to release the two accused no matter what. 1st Chambers must always override 5th Chambers but here it didn't. a deal had been done with the Americans, she was released and flown out that same evening.
And then the political shutters were brought down, esp. on the MSM. Again - do you catch my drift here? Yes that was Italy and Maricopa is Arizona but there are many principles the same in this matter - you only buy the required adjudicating "justices" and as we saw on Jan 4, they can do anything - even abstain, refuse to hear it.
The evil muvvers' side throws that back at the people, saying all right, you have your legal opinion - now let's see you establish it. Give it forty years of obfuscation and delay at every single turn, with an inexhaustible war chest.
What war chest do the people have? I'll tell you what they have - you remember the photo of four ladies led by Mindy Robinson who were seeking crowd funding to pursue the Senate actually doing its job in their state? Not to overturn legislation - no. Just to force the Senate to do its job.
Can you imagine the scale of this thing across the US? in every single state, both the place-Dems and RINOs will block, plus the Federal govt also weighs in.
Federal govt? Which Federal govt? Biden's? The Dept of State? As it is now in its usurped form?
My question throughout all of it - in America, Italy, here - is whose political will prevails? The people will rise? Yeeeessss, we saw that, didn't we, with the masks and jabs.
Coming to "our very own" boys and gals who've done such work bringing it all to these pages and hopefully, if I can get well enough to keep posting it I shall - why on earth should I want to throw cold water on all our efforts?
My reply would be that I don't, and yet Andrea's line needs to be heeded:
On Monday, though, a conservative reporter with a good reputation revealed some really stunning facts: Several hundred thousand ballots are missing and boxes that purported to hold ballots for counting contained only blanks.
There is a vast difference between establishing fraud in one county only and even if reprised in some other counties and even states, it falls way short of an overturning of the entire Fed-election, particularly if a place-judiciary is handling it and the Dems are taking the "prove each and every snippet one by one" line, enough at least to satisfy those Dems and RINOs place-people.
In Realpolitik - the Donald is in exile at Mar-a-Lago, not in Washington. Remember the wire fences there in DC and the whole storming of the Capitol thing? Designed to prevent anything like it happening again whilst the DemRats are in control with the connivance of the military top brass.
There is a vast difference between that and turning the official result over. In fact, the evil muvvers would even settle for civil war - hell, they settled for 911, didn't they? I'm not sure how many see it this way and if you don't, then who the hell am I anyway? Just an observer.
One last thing is about Knox - I'm well aware there is contrary opinion on it but I'd point this out only - there were two sides. One side was backed by the Black Nobility, the MSM, the Berlusconi judiciary, an endless war chest, as opposed to the prosecution, inc. 1st Chambers SC. The Berlusconi side also tried to get the prosecutor on corruption charges from some time in the past, not unlike the Russian connection with DJT. In the end he was acquitted but that's the type of Kavanaugh thing they were doing.
The CIA and other departments were behind the Berlusconi line and that of the entire MSM outside of Italy - the Italian press reporting the court proceedings for the day were only social media and freelances such as Andrea Vogt, until shut down by the govt. Are you catching my drift again? They had the trolls going around shutting people like myself down, we had no trolls - we reported each day's proceedings as they happened.
My suggestion is that on every single case which comes up, the first task is to establish what the govt line is, who is backing them, who has the endless war chest, who prosecutes prosecutors, whom the MSM are right behind. Then at least consider the other side's case - that of the ordinary, unsung people. - before deciding.
And in Maricopa, I can see something coming if "we" allow it:
In a House of Commons vote this evening, 60 MPs voted against the extension of the restrictions, the largest rebellion Boris has faced yet in connection with his lockdown policies – although not enough to defeat the Government, thanks to the support of Labour MPs. MailOnline has more.
James, congratulations. You have managed to express my own inchoate thoughts on these matters.
ReplyDeleteOur aim is to reflect. :)
Delete