How Trump Can Remain in Office No Matter What

By: Cliff Kincaid

Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit to overturn the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and hand the presidential election over to Donald Trump. But what if that doesn’t work? What if the corrupt Chief Justice John Roberts figures out a way to kill the legal action or avoid what the facts require? What does Trump do then?

Trump and his family and various Republicans have raised tens of millions of dollars to overturn the election fraud. Will all of that money be wasted because Republicans were incapable of guarding against election theft? Trump’s supporters don’t want to be saddled with a “presidential occupant” by the name of Joe Biden whose days are numbered in the oval office because of his rapidly progressing onset of dementia.

Vic Biorseth has the answer, articulated in his “Open Letter to President Trump Recommending Election Nullification,” and published on his Catholic American Thinker web site. Trump must stay in office and nullify the fraudulent results through executive power.

Vic is an ordinary American who served his country in the military and is not happy about the prospect of the backers of China Joe Biden staging a coup and taking control of the executive branch. Appealing to Trump, he writes, “If state governments, the US Congress and the US Supreme Court fail to act to overrule the corrupted and defrauded election results in several if not all American states, then it falls on you to act in your capacity as the chief law enforcement officer in the American government to do so.”

It sounds radical to some, but what would the Courts and the legislative branch do about it? They would, of course, scream and yell. The RINOs like Mitt Romney would act horrified. Former CIA man and Attorney General Bill Barr might resign. Who cares?

In the same way that Lincoln used executive power to hold the country together during the Civil War, Trump can do the same. Let Joe Biden take a trip to California to declare himself president. Let him be president of California, Oregon, and Washington State.

I am on many email lists, including those of Trump, and I have just received another appeal for funds, declaring, “This may be the most important email I ever send you.” Trump goes on to say, “I want to provide an update on our ongoing efforts to expose the tremendous voting irregularities that took place during the ridiculously long November 3rd Election. As President, I have no higher duty than to defend the laws of the Constitution of the United States. That is why I am determined to protect our Election system – which is under attack – but I cannot do it alone. I need YOUR HELP.”

The key phrase is that, “As President, I have no higher duty than to defend the laws of the Constitution of the United States.”

If the Court guts the Paxton lawsuit, does the president’s oath to defend the Constitution suddenly evaporate? No way. That’s when Trump must step up to the plate and declare that his authority is on an equal par with that of the Supreme Court. On that basis, he stays in office and prevents the phony “President-elect” Joe Biden from assuming power.

As Vic Biorseth puts it, “In adjudicating the Marbury v Madison case the Supreme Court established the principle of Judiciary Review, quite properly declaring a legislated law to be unconstitutional, null and no law. The Presidency and the Congress have precisely the same power to nullify anything that is unconstitutional. The fact that they have never done it yet does not mean that they cannot do it.”

Vic Biorseth is not a lawyer but he has common sense and the ability to understand what is at stake. He also knows that the presidency is not to be given away because of massive fraud. He explains, “The Constitution nowhere grants any of the three coequal branches of government any interpretive authority over itself that is in any way superior to the interpretive authority of the other two branches.”

That means Trump’s interpretation of his powers is as valid as any other. And based on the Lincoln precedent, a beloved leader, it is the right one in this case.

Biorseth concludes: “Any time before a fraudulently elected candidate is inaugurated, while you are still President, if the state governments, the Congress and the Supreme Court have failed to overturn this fraudulent election, then, you must overturn it, and let the fur begin to fly. You can nullify it by simply declaring it to be unconstitutional, null and void, thereby establishing a new Constitutional Principle of Presidential Review.”

In his open letter to Trump, he then adds, “You can and should demand that Congress set a new date for a new election, requiring only paper and pencil ballots, only absentee ballots allowed, and with a one-day voting restriction.”

If the Paxton lawsuit fails, because of political considerations, secret pressures, or other factors raised by John Roberts and the liberal judges, this is the only way forward, except for an actual declaration of martial law.

People are not contributing tens of millions of dollars to Trump’s Election Defense Fund just to see him walk away from the oval office if the “High Court” rules against him on spurious grounds. That’s when Trump must exercise his constitutional authority to stay in office until a fair and honest election is held. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.

Trump must not in the end bow down to the lawyers. He must save the nation no matter what. Otherwise, his legacy will forever be tainted and his voters totally disillusioned.

*Please go to Cliff Kincaid’s YouTube channel and watch his videos on election fraud before more of them are censored.


Hunter Says U.S. Attorney is Investigating his Tax Affairs

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Source: Federal prosecutors are investigating Hunter Biden over his tax affairs, the president-elect’s son said in a statement on Wednesday, marking another troubled chapter for the lawyer and investment adviser a little more than a month before his father is to take office.

In the statement, Hunter Biden said the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware advised his legal counsel about the matter on Tuesday and that he is confident he handled his tax affairs “legally and appropriately.”

“I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors,” Hunter Biden said.

The statement was sent out via President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team.

Hunter Biden did not divulge further information about the probe, including its scope. Kim Reeves, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office, declined to comment.

The younger Biden has been the subject of intense scrutiny related to his business dealings overseas, particularly for a Ukrainian energy company. The president-elect’s son was a target of Republicans, and attempts made by allies of President Donald Trump to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden ultimately resulted in Trump’s impeachment.

One of Trump’s closest allies in Congress has been pressing Attorney General William Barr to appoint a special counsel to oversee the investigation of Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

“We request that the Department of Justice immediately appoint an independent, unbiased special counsel to investigate the issues that we have raised,” said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus, in a letter signed by 10 Republican colleagues on Oct. 19.

On the same day the House Republicans sent the letter, Barr quietly appointed a special counsel to oversee the origins of the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, a move that ensured it would likely carry over into the Biden administration. Barr only revealed the existence of the probe earlier this month.

The saga has also entangled other members of the president-elect’s inner circle. Biden’s nominee for secretary of State, Tony Blinken, was interviewed by congressional Republicans as part of a probe into Hunter’s business activities. That investigation failed to establish that Hunter Biden’s work influenced his father’s actions as vice president or U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

The Biden transition team included a statement of support on Wednesday for the president-elect’s son: “President-elect Biden is deeply proud of his son, who has fought through difficult challenges, including the vicious personal attacks of recent months, only to emerge stronger.”

In part CNBC reports:

CNN later reported Wednesday that it had contacted Hunter Biden’s lawyer and his father’s presidential campaign last week seeking comment on the investigation, which CNN reported is “examining multiple financial issues, including whether Hunter Biden and associates violated tax and money laundering laws in business dealings in foreign countries, principally China.”

CNN reported that the investigation had been “largely dormant in recent months” due to Justice Department rules that bar taking legal actions in a cases that could affect an election.

The New York Post reported in October that the FBI seized both a computer and a hard drive believed to be Hunter Biden’s in December 2019, after the owner of a computer repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware, notified federal authorities he had possession of those items.

The store owner also gave a copy of the hard driver to a lawyer for Rudy Giuliani, the personal attorney for President Donald Trump, The Post reported. Giuliani then gave a copy of the hard drive to the newspaper.

In a statement Wednesday, the transition team of Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris said, “President-elect Biden is deeply proud of his son, who has fought through difficult challenges, including the vicious personal attacks of recent months, only to emerge stronger.”

The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees U.S. attorneys’ offices, declined to comment.

Hunter Biden has long struggled with drug addiction.

During the presidential election, Trump and his allies made Hunter Biden a focal point of political attacks, particularly in connection with his business dealings in Ukraine and China.

Hunter Biden and his father have denied any wrongdoing in relation to his business overseas, which Joe Biden says that he played no role in.

Trump last year was impeached by the House of Representatives for witholding congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine as he pressured that nation’s new president to investigate the Bidens. Trump was acquitted by the Senate after a trial.


Could Crimea Soon be Free of Russian Occupation/Annexation?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Just a few days ago…

Crimea | History, Map, Geography, & People | Britannica

France24: The UN General Assembly on Monday adopted a resolution urging Russia to end its “temporary occupation” of Crimea, which Moscow took over in 2014, “without delay.”

The resolution on the militarization of the peninsula of Crimea, the port of Sevastopol and parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov was adopted by 63 countries, with 17 voting against and 62 abstaining.

The resolution is non-binding but has political significance. It was put forward by 40 countries, including Britain, France, Germany and the Baltic states, as well the United States, Australia, Canada and Turkey.

The resolution “urges the Russian Federation, as the occupying Power, immediately, completely and unconditionally to withdraw its military forces from Crimea and end its temporary occupation of the territory of Ukraine without delay.”

Facing the “continuing destabilization of Crimea owing to transfers by the Russian Federation of advanced weapon systems, including nuclear-capable aircraft and missiles, weapons, ammunition and military personnel to the territory of Ukraine,” the resolution called on Russia to stop all such transfers “without delay.”

Fighting between Ukrainian troops and forces backed by Russia has left more than 13,000 dead since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and pro-Russian forces in the east of Ukraine rebelled against Kiev.

At the UN Security Council, tensions between Russia and western countries over the conflict remain in sharp focus, as was shown by an informal meeting last week by Moscow on the 2015 Minsk accords between Ukraine and Russia, which were sponsored by France and Germany.

Berlin and Paris sparked Russian fury by boycotting the meeting, described by European countries as an international platform offered to the Donbass separatists, several of whom had been invited to speak by Moscow.

Analysis: Why Russia's Crimea move fails legal test - BBC News

Is Crimea Now Costing Russia More Than It Is Worth?

Paul Goble

In the euphoria that surrounded Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea six years ago, most Russians were more than willing to spend money to integrate that region into the Russian Federation. But at that time, they had little idea just how much that process would cost. Not only did that aggressive breach of international law trigger Western sanctions against Russia, but the authorities in Moscow also never gave the public an honest estimate of just how much money would need to be spent, nor for how long, even after the Kremlin proclaimed the peninsula’s absorption an accomplished fact. Were the Russian economy doing well, that might not matter; but it is not (see EDM, May 61218November 30), and the subsidies going to Crimea are, of course, unavailable to support the domestic needs of the increasingly hard-pressed Russian people in Russia proper. That contradiction could, therefore, encourage Putin to try to launch a new military advance to cover these losses.

Russian regional affairs analyst Anton Chablin points out that the recently released budget figures for 2021 show enormous spending on Crimea is set to continue. Moscow plans to channel no less than 102 billion rubles ($1.5 billion) to support 68 percent of the budget of Crimea. That figure is larger than the subsidies going to Dagestan and Chechnya: 96.7 billion rubles ($1.4 billion) and 78.8 billion rubles ($1.1 billion), respectively. When the Russian economy was somewhat healthier, Russians generally ignored those costs as the generous outlays to the country’s newest imperial possession were not considered a serious problem. But now, the situation has changed; and the numbers Chablin cites will likely lead an increasing number of Russians to ask whether Crimea is worth it. Although such a mental shift may not push Moscow to return Crimea to Ukraine, it could certainly further undermine Russian support for Putin and make it more likely he will launch some new offensive to rebuild “patriotic” fervor around himself (Akcent.site, December 7).

The first signs of popular unhappiness about this spending are likely to emerge as the State Duma (lower chamber of parliament) considers the budget, Chablin writes. Deputies almost certainly will focus on three things: 1) the growth in Moscow’s subsidies rather than the declines the Kremlin had promised in earlier years; 2) the overly optimistic predictions about tax collection made by the Russian regime in Crimea that are unlikely to be met and that will force Moscow to pay out even more than it is budgeting; and, especially offensive to many in the current environment, 3) the fact that the administration on the peninsula continues to spend ever more money on itself rather than on things like vacation resorts that might benefit average Russians (Akcent.site, December 7).

From the beginning of the annexation, independent Russian observers did point out that the direct costs associated with integrating Crimea would be far larger than and last longer than the Kremlin promised. Historian Arkady Popov, for example, said that the Kremlin’s pledge to end subsidies amounting to a trillion rubles ($160 billion) after only five or six years was absurd. Not only was that amount, in fact, more than Moscow could possibly afford—it exceeded the projected subsidies to the North Caucasus and the Russian Far East over the same period—but it was actually far less than would be needed given the collapse of the economy in Crimea since Russia occupied it (Ej.ru, September 28, 2015). And even then, there were Russians complaining that Moscow had “billions” for Crimea but no money to refurbish their decaying housing
(Forum-msk.org, March 26, 2014).

In the intervening years, various experts have attempted to put a price on Moscow’s assistance to Crimea; however, the Russian government has done what it can to obscure what it has been spending. Perhaps the best estimate came last year. It was prepared by economist Sergei Aleksashenko, who, in a book-length study, asserts that Crimea had by then cost Russia 1.5 trillion rubles ($23.5 billion). That figure, he points out in the piece, equals approximately 10,000 rubles ($160) for every man, woman and child in the Russian Federation. Or put another way, Aleksashenko continues, Moscow is now spending on Crimea 357 times the amount it is spending on the Russian Academy of Sciences, even though he concedes that a majority of Russians, as of 2019, did not think that the annexation was having a negative impact on their lives (Forbes.ru, March 24, 2019).

That passive acceptance may now be changing. For one thing, these budget figures are coming to light at a time of pandemic-induced suffering. And for another, Russians are increasingly aware of the collateral financial costs associated with Crimea that are not being counted in those base subsidy amounts. Among the largest of these associated costs, which has attracted significant attention recently, is what Moscow may be forced to spend in the coming months to ensure that the peninsula has enough drinking water (see EDM, February 26August 12). Those estimated expenses are sufficiently great that Putin might decide on an alternative solution: launching a new military campaign against Ukraine to gain control of water supplies that Crimea lost access to when Russia occupied it (see EDM, May 21). If that were to happen, what may seem like a minor budgetary dispute could reignite the military conflict between Moscow and Kyiv, with all the far-reaching consequences that would involve.