Despite hundreds of affidavits and video recordings alleging election fraud, no court has been willing to hear the evidence. A New York attorney says there has to be at least an adjudication of the evidence, or else the nation will face consequences.
A New York attorney said a key issue right now is that there has been no proper adjudication of claims for potential election fraud, (not by Congress or the Courts).
Stephen Meister is a lawyer and a long-time opinion writer.
“I think it is absolutely the case that there has not been a merit-based hearing,” he said. “There’s been standing objections, like, for example, what happened with the Supreme Court and the Texas case? You had what it was in 18, or 19 states, probably 90 or 100 million people were behind that case, and the Supreme Court wouldn’t even hear it. So you’re not getting an adjudication of your very substantial compelling evidence of a fraud.”
Other than the Supreme court, many state and federal judges have refused to hear the evidence of alleged widespread voter fraud.
“I think there are some courts, which unfortunately, are partisan appendages of the Democratic Party,” Meister said. “I hate to say it, but the four three split decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court … essentially repealed a law duly enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature.’
The state’s Supreme court’s ruling immediately before the election allows voters to cast mail ballots for any reason.
A lawsuit filed against the statuary says it’s a violation of the state’s constitution, which has limitations on absentee voting.
Republicans in their Supreme Court lawsuit contended that Act 77 is “the most expansive and fundamental change to the Pennsylvania voting code, implemented illegally, to date” and is merely an “illegal attempt to override the limitations on absentee voting” enshrined in the state Constitution.
“I think many other judges are simply… they’re not necessarily biased, but they’re fearful because of the separation of powers … And they’ve simply been what I would call gun shy or reluctance to have a court adjudication of the popular election,” Meister said.
Last week, presidential electors cast their votes in the Electoral College.
The certified Democrat electors in the same states cast votes for Biden, while Republican electors from seven states also cast alternative slates of votes for President Trump.
Both the House and Senate must agree to object or accept electors. Congress will meet on Jan 6.
A very small number GOP lawmakers have said they will object to the votes.
Under the law, both the House and Senate would need to agree to object to the real electors and accept the fake electors. There is 0.00 chance the House reverses the election.
Stephen Miller cannot change this reality: on Jan 20, he & @realDonaldTrump will leave the White House. https://t.co/VSKTsr50f9— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) December 14, 2020
“The question is, what evidence is Congress going to have in its disposal for those debates? And that’s what I think this is all about,” Meister said.
“I think America is up to now the greatest democracy in the world. We have been highly critical of communist regimes that have rigged elections. And the importance of this goes way beyond, in my opinion, President Trump and former vice president Biden.
“It’s absolutely essential to the United States to our Republic, that the American people and the world at large, have confidence in the integrity of our elections. So to me, I can’t see why anyone on any side of the political aisle would object to an examination of these machines and the ballots and the signature verification and everything. If it was all done correctly, why not shine a bright light on it and look at it?”
Penny Zhou, NTD NEWS