White House Senior Advisor Peter Navarro Releases Independent Report on 2020 Election

In his capacity as a private citizen, likely a position related to legal advice from White House counsel, Senior White House Policy Advisor Peter Navarro has released a 36-page report containing a review and summary of findings from the 2020 election.

Within the report [direct pdf here] Navarro outlines the issues at stake within several key states in the election contest. The report highlights several troubling issues related to the way mail-in, potentially fraudulent ballots, were handled in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin Nevada and Pennsylvania. Within those states the activity by regional officials is critical to understanding the controversial post-election-day outcomes.

As Navarro states “the observed patterns of election irregularities are so consistent across the six battleground states that they suggest a coordinated strategy to, if not steal the election outright, strategically game the election process in such a way as to “stuff the ballot box” and unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of the Biden-Harris ticket.”

Last night the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, announced there was evidence of specific election interference by foreign actors specifically: China, Russia and Iran. Additionally, a report on those malign activities is forthcoming.

While there is personal interest among some of the the j(ohn)ustices, there also is the issue of standing. And in all of these cases, many people don't understand what standing means.

When SCOTUS denied remedy based on a state's attempt to overturn another state's election based on "they aren't fixing their own fraudulent mess". The court reminded them that 1st, remedy should start locally and work it's way to SCOTUS. 2nd, the requested remedy has to be within SCOTUS' constitutional authority. 3rd, it must be supported by evidence and facts.

Every case they have filed with SCOTUS has missed enough marks that SCOTUS had to punt.

Now, let's say there is a case filed, SCOTUS hears it and makes a ruling in favor of the petitioner. SCOTUS, would only be able to agree and then toss it back to the state legislators.

Now, in the state of Pennsylvania, if SCOTUS were to do that , the Penn legislators might have a justification for an emergency session.

We can be disappointed that SCOTUS didn't even hear the case, but realistically we would be even more enraged if they heard it and appeared to do nothing. And sending it back to legislators who already have the authority to deal with but have not, will mean that a SCOTUS ruling in our favor, amounted to nothing. A waste of SCOTUS time.

Having piled all of that into this reply, I will add this. I think any unconstitutional act is an offense to the Constitution and the authority of the entire country. Therefore, an attack on the constitution aimed to unseat duly elected officials or undermined/undue the constitutional framework of this nations, is a declaration of foreign sovereignty. Those Individuals are demonstrating their chosen alien status in regards to our entire system. They have declared themselves an enemy of ours. Even if a civilian remedy miraculously resolves this, those self declared enemies must be taken into military custody and given the tribunal they work so hard to avoid/attain.

These chicken shit asswipes on the SC should be smart enough to know if they do not stand up for the rule of law, the whole country will go lawless which will further endanger their own lives.

If they don't prosecute this fraud and bring the perpetrators to justice, the lawlessness from both sides will turn against them. They're the only non-elected group involved.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.