To win a defamation case, the plaintiff must establish five things: 1. that a defamatory statement was made, 2. that the statement was about the plaintiff, 3. that the statement was a matter of fact and not opinion, 4. that the statement was false, and 5. malice, the intention to do harm. The farther we get to the end of that list, the more difficult it may prove to prove.
News agencies don’t claim facts; they report what other people claim as facts. Defamation usually doesn’t become a problem for a news agency unless the agency knows a statement to be false and reports it as truth anyway. Usually, defamation cases should target the false witness, not the news agency or the attorney. But, in the case of the 2020 election machines, targeting Giuliani, Powell, and Fox News looks more like a theatrical stage of a failed sting. Pathological liars don’t give up on the lie when caught, but often dismiss and even accuse whistleblowers of conspiracy. The voting machine companies would seem more credible if they were suing attorneys and news agencies for access to the whistleblowers.
Speaking of whistleblowers, didn’t Democrats establish with the Russianewsgategate scandal that whistleblowers should be protected?
Trump will live at Mar-a-Lago as an employee, which hosts the first ever “Office of the Former President”. Obama holds such a titular office. Trump is the first president to be impeached twice. His post-presidential trial will be held on Tuesday, February 16, only eight days away. Senate Republicans fear convicting him, lest they do even more irreparable damage than their insolvent party has already sustained.
Trump does not display the attitude of a man who intends to lose. Biden does not display the behavior of someone who can win. The equation to predicting a Trump victory is elementary: one candidate works for what will happen after the victory he takes as already guaranteed; the other works to attain that victory. Victory goes to the one who works for it.
For some reason, the need to work for victory sails past the thinking of too many people, not the least of which include members of the media.
Not only are election news articles conclusive when reporting events—in a sweeping trend yet unseen in the West—, now they use the same terms. Republican senators and representatives are reported as making a “last-ditch” effort (hyphenated across news platforms). This leads Pacific Daily Times to develop the “morning news memo” (MNM) theorem—that reporters, anchors, newswriters, and other such wordsmiths across the news industry receive some kind of [actual or theoretical] memorandum in the morning on which identical words to copy so that their content is less original from one news outlet to another. This may not actually happen, but the theorem merely states that news content can be better understood as if it happens. Accordingly, the PDT MNM theorem suggests that the MNM word for the day was “last-ditch”, (hyphenated).
Senators and representatives, headed by posy leader apparent Ted Cruz, propose an “Electoral Commission” to investigate the legality of all electoral votes in an emergency 10-day review. That would return results by January 16, which could then allow the electoral college to be certified before the January 18 deadline. If House Democrats and the Senate agreed, Biden could win. But, Democrats don’t want such a win, suggesting that they fear the results if an “Electoral Commission” were created as a “last-ditch” (hyphenated).
Without said commission, the posy will dispute the electoral college as not “regularly given” or not “lawfully certified”. Having neglected the need to gain the confidence of his own election, and with a clear and likely path to victory for Trump, it seems as if this entire election dispute was doctored from the get go. Biden may have already found himself in a ditch—the “last-ditch” (hyphenated).
Republican leaders continue to lecture a public which no longer trusts them. They want the American people to “move on”, apparently without knowing that would mean moving on “from them”. But, people can’t move on when they are convinced of election fraud anymore than we can move on with unaddressed police killing.
The solution is to restore confidence in what has well-earned doubt. Government doesn’t want to do that, but only “solve” problems by making more problems that will gain more distrust. The public has a breaking point. We are getting very close to that point. And, both parties are both stepping on the gas when they should both be stepping on the breaks.
Trump plans to present more election fraud in defense at his Senate trial. Chief Justice Roberts has made it clear he doesn’t want to hear any evidence of election fraud—he shares that view with several other judges. Remember, the Court always votes in favor of the Court. It is not impossible for Roberts to walk into the Senate, sit down, declare, “The plaintiff is not the incumbent; dismissed,” swing his gavel, and walk out. With Trump’s intended defense, Robert’s only other option would be to shut down presentation of evidence while the nation watches. That is, unless he has changed his mind on hearing evidence.
No less than 45 Republican Senators voted that the trial itself is unconstitutional. If any of them vote to remove Trump from an office he no longer holds, they would have declared themselves unconstitutional in their own opinions and thus hasten the growing distrust of the RNC. So you see, Roberts and the Republicans are in a tight spot.
Trump has a realistic path to the presidency. Rules for the electoral college allow for discussion and dispute which could delay finalization of the vote past January 18. If Congress has not approved the electoral college vote by then, the electoral college fails and the election defaults to Congress. Then, the Senate chooses the vice president and the House chooses the president by state delegates—of which there are more Republican. At that point, it would be political suicide for even Romney to vote against Trump. All that has to happen is delay in the Senate—something the Senate is very good at when it wants to be. With 18 states having filed a suit with the Supreme Court, such a delay is quite likely.
Far more interesting are the public narratives. All mainstream news, including Fox News, continue to push finality—the idea that the election is over and decided, when it is in fact in dispute and when it has not yet been finalized. The Trump team responds by pushing evidence—strangely changed rules, flagrantly broken rules, and endless testimonies. As a result, Biden voters are being conditioned to believe the election is over while Trump voters are being conditioned to believe it should not be over. The only assurance is limbo.
If Trump wins, the Democratic base is preconditioned for nation-wide meltdown while the Republican base is preconditioned for the in-your-face exhilaration worthy of a Rocky movie ending. That leads to the greatest danger: an overly-trusted Republican Party. That was Trump’s danger from the onset.
The suspicious part is how well the Democrats in Washington played along to make it all possible. Sooner or later, people will figure it out. Some are already starting to.
Hit pieces against China are coming out as if from an avalanche. More dangerous, they are coupled with Western plans of military expansion in China’s back yard. From Xinjiang teens to disappearing journalists to Australian wine to spies in America to colleges—to a global virus pandemic—Western readers have no rest from bad news of China.
The equation has been there and in play. America’s election appears stolen to 75% of Republican voters and 30% of Democrats. Elections require agreement on results in order to function. Lack of agreement on a trustworthy election is unusual as it is staggering. That’s a mandate for Trump to take drastic action, deny Biden’s inauguration, and take measures to remain in office that can’t avoid national inflammation.
As inevitable American conflict in January comes into closer view coupled with such bad press on China, the US strategy in the West Pacific is more and more difficult to deny. China was always the perfect distraction from the mess at home. The problem is that the American populous no longer responds as usual. A national attack may not have the uniting effect it once did—at least not uniting enough to keep any president in office in the face of an election so disputed.
Taiwan continues the role as the “China virus” poster boy. The Taiwanese handle things so well, don’t they. Strict rules on breaking quarantine—punishing a foreigner with thousands in fines for walking in the hallway outside his room for eight seconds—but Taiwanese officials forgot to lock the quarantine door because the world is supposed to believe Taiwan is so careful, right?
At some point, it should become obvious that we are playing a game of charades with who is good and bad—or at least on who is how good and how bad. As China’s role is to be the common enemy for divided Americans and a divided West to unite against, China’s big mistake—over decades and to this day—was to play that role all too gladly. A shoe was made and China chose to fit it.
And so, the crud hits the fan. Elections only work with a consensus of trust. A distrusted election result can’t work; the masses won’t allow it, even if the inaugural ceremonies continue. Neither Trump nor Biden can persist as president past January except in name only. This is how nations split every few centuries. We live to see historic times.
Eighteen states, including Texas, sued the four swing states for illegally changing election rules mid season. If we count the undisputed votes and Republican legislatures of those four states which heard the evidence, that would be twenty-two states for Trump. Twenty-two Democratic states filed to object. If results favor Republicans, the nation is split right down the middle. Each side is convinced it is in the right—Democrats because they saw it on the news—Republicans because they saw it at government hearings which were specifically not on the news. That’s all the reason either side has ever needed to believe anything they believe.
Neither side even tried to persuade the other in a way that could be heard. The news-Democrat side simply asserted a result, marginalizing questions as “atypical”, ignoring the fact that eighteen states can’t be atypical by definition and cannot become atypical by mere assertion. Conservatives and Republican voters argued “evidence” and “rules” after sewing distrust of rules through a century of refusing justice to Democratic voter needs.
Neither side was ever going to concede. The Supreme Court stayed out of it, arguing “lack of standing”. Democratic-run states answered with blanket denial one would expect from China—and it seemed to work on the Supreme Court, though it never works when China does it. With the Senate sending a blistering 83 votes against Trump’s veto promise on a military bill, Republican voters feel betrayed. Surely, the gun-owning Republicans are mulling over multiple militarized responses. Democrats would riot before conceding. If Trump ever does concede, it would indicate he has plans to eventually win by means more formidable than a militarized option. Concession from either side would be fake, indicating hidden danger to come.
Those eighteen states may boycott the electoral college, denying the two-thirds quorum; if they don’t then their lawsuit was only for show. If the Electoral College names Biden, he can rightly be called the “President-Elect” for the first time, even if in question. And, if he gets that title while in question, America will see Conservative rage—and Liberal riots in response—like never before. Liberals aren’t fond of following rules when they lose because the rules are unfair against them all too often. Lawless Liberals are somewhat common; lawless Conservatives are a bigger league altogether. God forbid that Liberals break enough rules to convince Conservatives to stop following their own rules. That is a wrath none could prepare for. There is no peaceful resolution, but at least Americans all agree on the depth of our long-neglected problems.