Legal Questions About 2020 Election Remain
Posted On April 20, 2021
This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion
Get The Real News Delivered To Your Inbox
The 2020 election has left us with more legal questions than answers. Some would say that this was a fair and free election, which may be true to some extent. Wide scale voter fraud should be handled on a case-by-case basis; therefore it would be impossible to prove a wide scale voting fraud operation. This doesn’t mean that there weren’t people who had a vested interest in the outcome, it is important to identify the players.
The “Fortified” Election
Time Magazine released an article that stated that an alliance of activists and business leaders across party lines “fortified the election.” They go on to say, “although most activity handled on the left, this was not coordinated by the Biden campaign.” If you believe the last statement, you’re probably the type of person to email back the Nigerian prince. This article also states this was done in coordination with the Voter Protection Program. If there indeed was an alliance to rig an election, we need to first establish if the Voter Protection Program would have a vested interest in the outcome.
Voter Protection Program Leadership Reads Like a Who’s Who of Trump’s Critics
1. Tom Ridge: former Governor of Pennsylvania. He has been a vocal critic of Trump.
2. Bill Weld: former Governor of Massachusetts. Not only did Weld run in the 2020 election as a Republican, he called President Trump “A threat to the rule of law.”
3. Christine Todd Whitman: former Governor of New Jersey. She is a very vocal critic of President Trump who led a national opposition to him and openly endorsed Biden at the Democratic National Convention.
4. Frankie Sue Del Papa, the Attorney General for the State of Nevada. She joined a group of female Attorneys General to support the Biden-Harris campaign. She has also been quoted as saying that the election was like “returning to normalcy” and “cleaning the refrigerator.”
Voter Protection Program: Do You Mean Biden For President, Inc.?
Do you honestly think these wonderful people would have a vested interest in the outcome of the election? No, of course not; that’s like Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy being on a commission of how to properly dispose of bodies. Is there a vested interest? Absolutely. Does that mean that there was widespread voter fraud? No, but we do have evidence that points towards yes.
Legal Questions With No Answers
In the state of Nevada, which Biden needed to secure 270 electoral votes, US Judge James Macan threw out Trump’s lawsuit over the state’s law that sent out mail-in ballots to all registered voters, regardless of whether or not they were requested.
Trump argued that this would remove election safeguards. Macan denied the injunction saying, “These injuries are too speculative to establish a standing” and that this did not establish a “substantial risk” of any alleged harm. Helen Keller, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles could have seen the substantial risk that this would pose.
Let’s focus on Georgia – another state Biden needed to win for 270 – where we have another interesting case. In Georgia, the Democratic party sued the Attorney General regarding election laws. The reason they sued isn’t important; what is important is the settlement that was reached. In this settlement, ballot curing was added to election laws. Ballot curing is when a ballot would be rejected, and the state would notify the voter and have the issue corrected or “cured.” In the settlement, for the 2020 election the rules for absentee ballots would be changed. Before the settlement, the absentee ballot had to have matched a signature on eNet, which was a computer database that had all states’ voting information. Now, absentee ballots would only need to match the signature on the application for the ballot. This
was reported on November 11, 2020 and if a pattern is starting to emerge, congratulations, you are now a conspiracy theorist. Line up for your tin foil hats and lifetime subscription to Infowars.
On the next episode of “Wow, that’s a blatant violation of the Constitution” we move our cameras to the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Some background: Act 77 passed the State Senate, allowing voters to be sent absentee ballots without them requesting them (sounds a bit familiar doesn’t it, Nevada?) but made it clear that all the ballots were to be delivered by 8 pm on Election Day. The State Senate did not see a need for this deadline to be extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court took one look at this law and immediately created their own legislation.They said, “Ballots are to be treated as timely if they are postmarked on or before Election Day and are received within three days thereafter.” In addition, the Court ordered that a ballot with no postmark or an illegible postmark must be regarded as timely if it is received by that same date. This went to the U.S. Supreme Court and they didn’t take this case. In his dissent to the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “That is not a prescription for confidence. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes but officials who may lack the authority to do so is even worse. When these changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self -governance so heavily depends.”
Are there questions that need to be asked about the 2020 election? Why haven’t we had an investigation about this if genuine questions exist?
David Aguirre is a writer for NRN. He's also the writer and host of the Oregon Conservative, a podcast that gives you the opinions of national news through the eyes of a Mexican conservative. David uses humorous metaphors and similes to show just how much we have failed as society.