The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Brett Redmayne-Titley Archive
Trump’s (64 Day) Post-Election Endgame. OR, …
… Can A Criminal Be Inaugurated President?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Suddenly, the anticipated Trump campaign’s October surprise: allegations that presidential candidate Joseph Biden has been a beneficiary of an international influence-peddling scheme with his son, Hunter, as the point man. This has dramatically, for the moment, turned the tables of election 2020.

This pre-election day chess move is an obvious, carefully planned Trump campaign hit job, but short-sighted, most pundits predict these allegations come too late to sway the outcome of election day. This view is dubious and misses what could indeed be a three-move check-mate against Joe Biden, but…after the votes are counted.

Come Nov 3, the race for POTUS is far from over. Trump’s handlers seem to know this. The follow-up will be an unprecedented public spectacle that will likely very much include the Electoral College. Further, this possible coup will have sixty-four very valuable extra days, a Judiciary Committee, an Attorney General, a Senate and developing media attention, all remaining and at the RNC’s disposal.

The Trump campaign knows this and appears to be playing the long game. Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon are not political fools. Thanks to Biden’s true personality being exposed, a growing treasure chest of allegations have been handed over to Trump, four different times thus far. If these revelations prove true, should Trump lose, this will also provide his campaign no less than two more chances to bring Biden down.

The timing of the weeks four separate bombshells alleging a Biden family pay-to-play scheme mimic off course the effects of the July 22 and November 6th, 2016 Wikileaks pre-election revelations. Here, in context, it should be remembered that this massive leak of emails blew up the campaign of the, then, DNC frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. It also exposed the utter anti-democratic corruption and coup that was the 2016 DNC presidential election committee.

The Biden pay-to-play allegations also mimic those against Hillary Clinton US Secretary of State and the trove of evidence strongly indicating her own scheme in which her business partner, former president Bill Clinton, sold himself for international speeches…and access to Hillary’s State Department. And, during Biden’s tenure as VP.

Mere days ago, the initial salvo released the news of Hunter Biden’s laptop and an alleged FBI cover-up of its illicit contents. In brief, Hunter had left it uncollected for months at a computer repair shop, and after seeing the laptop’s contents the owner, John Paul MacIsaac, first turned it over to the FBI which did nothing with it. But MacIsaac had kept a copy of the hard drive, and next donated it to Trump’s top henchman, Rudy Giuliani, who tossed this bone to the New York Post, who blew the whistle to the public.

The laptop’s contents and emails made headlines… except in virtually the entirety of DNC aligned mainstream and social media. That’s most of it. This began Trump’s efforts to substantiate that Father Joe was the willing bait to sell influence in the VP’s office while he was in that office. Worse, the Bidens may have been working in concert with America’s newest enemy number one: China.

Two days later the next salvo hit. A former close business associate of Hunter Biden, Bevan Cooney, who is currently serving a prison sentence for fraud, gave-up his own laptop reportedly containing 26,000 emails that according to Breitbart News make it “explicit” that Hunter Biden was “trading off the Biden name, the Biden connections, and the Biden access.” It has recently been reported that Cooney was moved out of his cell in Oregon for his safety.

Barely a day went by before Tony Bobulinski next stepped forward with his digital paper trail of alleged Biden family conspiracy. Bobulinski has offered himself up as the total insider with the needed direct link(s) to the former VP and China. As of Tuesday night, Nov 27. when appearing with Tucker Carlson on Fox News he became the personalized face representing all these three sets of revelations. In reviewing the interview, despite his constant reminders of his being a democrat, his military record and his outrage on behalf of the American people, Bobulinski is obviously a well-rehearsed hitman. But his clownish act does not negate this purported evidence from further investigation.

A dubious side note has also been floated with a detailed investigative report authored by the unknown Typhoon Investigations, released by Christopher Balding, Associate Professor at Peking University who reportedly is a contributor to the anti-Trump Bloomberg News. The report is 65 pages, well presented, documented, charted, sourced and referenced. This presentation must be called out as to its validity if only because of the sensational but fraudulent Steele Dossier leak of four years ago.

Certainly, this report must be vetted, like the two camera moths, MacIsaac and Bobulinski. But if Prof. Balding does not cash his chips forever with Bloomberg, investigations will be in order.

If Trump loses, so begins the long game of hard-ball power politics, 2020 and ‘21.

Speaking of Investigations.

Already these allegations have provided much further de-legitimacy of the Biden campaign beyond the candidate himself. The virtual black-out of all four stories and the excuses offered by the news directors of many censors have not blinded the public. Instead, this obvious censorship has rocketed this developing story to a massive new viewership. Questions about the related FBI cover-up in burying the laptop allegations have further increased calls for an investigation. The outrage of America’s awakening public is rising daily, with at least sixty-four plus days to go.

Post-election day, should these allegations bear scrutiny there are three possible investigative bodies available to Trump. Further, the Electoral College has two more required steps to complete as well. This gives Trump, should he lose, multiple new chances to legally overthrow Biden.

Behind the scenes, as the process of the Electoral College begins before it convenes for the last time on Jan 6, 2021, the Judiciary Committee, the Senate and the Attorney General will remain republican. Assuming AG Bill Barr is willing to do his job, history may be made post-election and, if so, placing one’s hand upon the bible may not this time be the privilege of the president-elect, but that of an indicted co-defendant in court.

The first step of the Electoral College does not take place until Monday, Dec 14. In the meantime, although covering-up for Biden as the DNC media may attempt, the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee has already announced, on Thurs Oct 22, 2020, that on Oct 28 it will be convening public hearings regarding the censorship by at least Twitter, Google and Facebook of the Biden accusations. These hearings, although in the guise of examining social media censorship, will instead be an initial public display by the RNC of many of the allegations against Biden. This will be must-see TV for the tens of millions of locked-down, unemployed, and pissed off American’s who were already holding their noses about this election’s bi-partisan stench.

Two of the three constitutionally available methods of investigation are tactically available to the RNC: A Senate Commission; or the Appointment of a Special Counsel, at the request of the Judiciary Committee, by the Dept. of Justice.

A Senate investigation would have the benefit of TV coverage, as was the case with the Watergate and 9/11 investigations. It may be included in a duet of investigations. With the Judiciary Committee already on the attack, it will almost certainly reconvene again with Biden as the target. Able to function quickly as a quasi- grand jury, upon the Judiciary Committee’s initial examination the JC will likely call for the appointment of a Special Counsel. The Attorney General, William Barr, must then immediately appoint a Special Counsel of his choosing.

Bill Barr has of late not been loyal to Trump, nor with his investigations into DNC criminal interference and collusion against a sitting president. But, if Barr fails to appoint a Special Counsel he must, by law, inform the Judiciary Committee of his exact reasons. So, if Barr doesn’t do his job as demanded by the JC, he too will join Dorsey and Zuckerberg as coconspirators, at least in the widening minds of the public now watching closely.

Regarding the AG’s support of a Special Counsel, the regulations set forth (28 C.F.R. 600.1) require a three-part analysis: One, that “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” Two, that prosecution of the “person or matter” would present “a conflict of interest for the Department [DoJ]”, and, three, whether “it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”

By definition, Biden is in it deep.

*

Certainly, the next few days before the election are not sufficient to see any result of an investigation and Trump just might win. Or, lose. Trump’s campaign loyalists knew this beforehand, particularly the suddenly released from the woodshed, Steve Bannon. He and Giuliani have likely had all this info for many weeks in waiting. If legitimate, to waste political treasure of this magnitude too early in a single pre-election attack not likely for men as crafty as Bannon and Giuliani. Since a Trump loss is still the predicted outcome, both are more likely preparing to play the long game of the post-election day Electoral College. Presumably, both are aware of its step-by-step chronology. Almost all of American voters are not.Yet.

However fraudulent this election may be on many other state line battle fronts, the two upcoming Electoral College votes (actually fifty-one votes in total), both a month apart, are required of the EC to certify the presidential winner. With the scripted investigations thus already nicely raging in the minds of the Electoral College, and the court of public opinion, the EC has the ability to be Trump’s checkmate.

The Reality of the Electoral College.

The constitutional provisions of the Electoral College have been reported far too simply.

The Electoral College is not an institution but, more accurately, the process of certifying the final results of a presidential election after Election Day and before the inauguration of Jan 20, 2021.

Previous to the 2016 election, Electors of each state – Republican or Democrat- only “promised” that they would vote for the candidate who did prevail in their state. Few states had a legal requirement nor penalty for an Elector not doing so. Up until that election, only a total of eight Elector’s had ever in US history bucked party lines.

In July 2020, the US Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, certified a state’s ability to mandate that any elector not deviate and that any who would can be sanctioned. At this time, still many states have not mandated a penalty, and of those that do, none is punitive enough to prevent an Elector following his conscience and allegiance to country.

As the Electoral College begins and voter tabulation finally comes in sometime beyond Nov 3, the governor of each state must first prepare a “Certificate of Ascertainment” listing all of the candidates who ran for President along with the names of each of the respective Electors of the state’s party choice of president. Each state sends its Certificate of Ascertainment to the National Archives, but the C.A. of each state is also readied for a required upcoming public meeting of Electors at each of the fifty state capitols.

The public meeting of the electors must take place on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, which will be December 14, 2020.The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate personal ballots. After the vote, usually a formality seldom attended by members of the public, each state’s elector’s votes are next recorded on that state’s “Certificate of Vote,” which, now finalized, is also sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.

But, on Dec 14 – just forty-one days in– each state’s EC must vote in public. What will be the mood of these Electors six weeks, and possibly two ongoing investigations, after election day? Regardless, each state will next have three more weeks to re-consider their Dec 14 vote, the mounting evidence… and their conscience.

*

Any individual protest by an elector will be merely grandstanding. However, by law, any state body of Electors might instead be influenced to collectively, “object.” This collective state protest of objection to a president-elect can be rendered at the State House on Dec 14, but also at any time before the reading of that state’s name from the floor of the US House of Representatives. That will be on Wed Jan 6, 2021.

This meeting is also, by law, public.

Yes, instead of individually influencing Electors to change their minds on individual votes at the State House, an entire state might ultimately- after days of watching the results of Biden’s true character surface daily- exert its 10th Amendment rights and chose to object to Biden’s certification. When the elector’s votes are read one-by-one by one, in alphabetical order by one of the four designated congressional “Tellers”, any state at that moment may interrupt the proceedings at the calling of its name and object. The objection must be on constitutional grounds. Such as secretly dealing with a foreign power for profit.

Just as importantly, if any state does object, the vote tally immediately stops and a separate joint session of Congress must then be held to investigate and debate the merits of that state’s objection. Should there be a subsequent objection, yet another session must be held, but it is unclear if multiple issues and state’s objections could be combined.

Although a president-elect with a criminal conviction can indeed still be elected president, any state can at least temporarily stop the proceeding for an examination of new charges by the full House. For examples of this possibility, Texas, in its state’s constitution, provides that disqualification for elected office can be for “anyone that has a conviction for bribery, forgery, perjury, and other high crimes.” Texas is a Trump state and is a strategic possibility to object on behalf of Trump once Trump makes the call to party loyalist, Gov. Greg Abbott.

Over in Georgia, a Democrat stronghold, their bar is lower, disqualifying anyone who has been convicted of a crime “about moral turpitude.”

What is important to note is that if Biden crosses the bar in any state, it would thus be statutorily illegal for that state to allow its electors to certify its State’s result on Jan 6. Therefore, that state must object. Having Georgia similarly object on Jan 6 is not beyond possibility if the allegations are by then substantially proven.

As for the voter, this is certainly not a farfetched possibility. On, Oct 26, the Google search for “Can I change my votewas reportedly surging nationally. And, b y Jan 6…?

An objection by a state has never happened. This eventuality, particularly if other states followed suit, would be far different from Biden dropping dead or impeached by his own party under the 25th Amendment due to his declining mental condition. The objection(s) would also have the potential to remove enough Elector’s votes from the Biden’s grand total to swing that remaining total in Trump’s favour. These objections would not provide the DNC with their desired result of a Kamala Harris presidency. Nor would the Speaker of the House take over as interim president. This would be a unique electoral problem, one probably headed to SCOTUS for resolution.

And, just moments ago, Trump’s new SCOTUS appointment, Amy Coney Barrett, has now been confirmed by the Senate.

Trump’s senate.

*

The sound of pitchforks is an interesting sound for it tends to carry on the winds.

Come Dec 14, and then on Jan 6, on either day where will the unemployed, pitchfork carrying, depressed, angry, hungry, and disenfranchised voters be, physically and mentally.

The answer on both days could be: shoulder to shoulder packing each and every State House rotunda. Rightfully, the voters, after decades of congressional, presidential and political party corruption are quite anxious and willing to finally lynch at least one of these bastards. And Joe Biden may be the one to swing.

Will Biden fight? It’s doubtful, since he has trouble speaking much less weathering a prosecutor’s attack.

Will Kamala Harris take his place? Not a chance. No outraged voter or elector after, having taken Biden’s skin, will ever allow a black Hillary Clinton in the White House, particularly one just as corrupt as Biden.

Nancy Pelosi? Well…need one say more?

*

The author offers this plausible evaluation to the reader in the spirit of bi-partisan presidential contempt.

While it is easy to detest the presidential offerings of at least the past five elections, any political junkie should put aside a partisan view-point to appreciate this possible brilliant strategic checkmate by Giuliani and Bannon. Face it, Trump’s not this smart.

Giuliani and Bannon are anything but politically naïve. If these allegations prove worthy of investigation at the Congressional level it is very doubtful that this carefully laid coup would be so short sighted as to be risked on only influencing the popular vote count.

If the allegations against Joe Biden and family begin to gel into hard proof, the aftermath of the worst presidential election in US history will only increase in turmoil. With the other ongoing election chaos, thus combined with the Electoral College, the flames already on American streets will become a firestorm that has the possibility of destroying the nation.

The American voter, no matter which horned and tailed, crimson-red phoenix does rise from these flames, constitutionally, politically, or militarily, will in less than a week, and sixty-four days after have to watch, wait and see.

Or, pick-up a pitchfork and run to the local State House!

About the Author: Brett Redmayne-Titley has authored and published over 180 in-depth articles over the past twelve years. Many have been translated and republished worldwide. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk

 
Hide 129 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. What a moronic article.

    What is important to note is that if Biden crosses the bar in any state, it would thus be statutorily illegal for that state to allow its electors to certify its State’s result on Jan 6. Therefore, that state must object. Having Georgia similarly object on Jan 6 is not beyond possibility if the allegations are by then substantially proven.

    This is a deep misunderstanding of the Constitution. No state can impose an additional requirement for federal office. Eugene Debs, for example, ran for President in 1920 while incarcerated.

    … impeached by his own party under the 25th Amendment due to his declining mental condition

    Impeachment has absolutely nothing to do with the 25th Amendment. They are entirely separate processes.

  2. For better info, grab a six-pack and watch three hours of Alex Jones and Joe Rogan discuss this yesterday.

  3. Nuncle says:

    Just wondering which U.S. president hasn’t been a criminal.

    • Agree: Shaman911
    • Replies: @Sollipsist
    , @Moi
  4. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

    Has Any Inaugurated President Not Been A Criminal? Has Any Hyphenated-Named Writer Been Worth Reading?

    • Agree: VinnyVette
    • Replies: @GeeBee
    , @Gidoutahere
  5. Pindos says:

    This is america where anyone can be president, even criminals. Takes my breath away, the beauty of it all. Let’s pledge allegiance together shall we. “I pledge allegiance…etc. And justice for all”

  6. Sour grapes!
    Show me a politician who one time or the other did not take a bribe.
    And anyway if Biden would go down, so what? Democrats won the election so Kamala would become the president and she would choose her VP. Democrats would be even more happy.

    • Agree: Tor597
  7. Tony Hall says:

    Wow. It could all go up in smoke. Or might there be a chance that the domino effect will kick in? Might there be a chance for redemption as the light of disclosure begins to illuminate the pervasiveness of organized crime especially at the highest levels of law enforcement and the intelligence agencies? Such a reckoning with the corruption of many of our real governors might merge with what the coronavirus criminals in and around the World Economic Forum are calling “the Great Reset.” How about we try to turn the vast transformative energies unleashed in 2020 to realize the ideals of a people’s movement to bring about the Great Alteration, the Great Reckoning. Why not seek to draw from this crisis the opportunity to move towards a Promised Land where Peace and Justice will emerge from a far-reaching Embrace of Truth.

  8. unit472 says:

    I read another analysis that if the E.C. cannot determine who the next president will be it is up to the sfates, with each state getting one vote, to decide. The Republicans have 27 states with a Republican majority so under this provision, Trump would prevail, presuming he can keep his states in line. So long as he carries Texas, Florida etc that shouldn’t be hard as no governor or state legislator is likely to want to commit political suicide.

    • Replies: @Brett Redmayne-Titley
  9. nsa says:

    Help! Could anyone please explain why the Trump Campaign selected the homo pickup anthem YMCA by the Village People as its theme song? This alone is reason enough to vote the silly old fool out of office. At his rallies, the relentlessly awful YMCA gay theme song starts up and then Donnie Lardbutt busts out some moves that are lame even by white male dancing standards……a few pathetic fist pumps followed by several even more pathetic knee knocks and a butt wiggle….and the maga morons go nuts. What next? Depends Biden in his walker doing the MJ moon walk? Pence in a jock strap doing a pole dance?

    • LOL: Ugetit
    • Troll: zimriel
    • Replies: @Alden
  10. Tor597 says:

    This is pure Trumpcuck fantasy porn here. It will never happen.

    Every single member of congress is corrupt to a certain degree including Trump himself. People know this and don’t care. You think Trump never paid bribes or took money/deals that came with influence?

    You can fault Biden for supposedly being influenced by Ukraine or China. But look at how much of a cuck Trump is to Isreal. He always says Isreal has never had a better friend in office.

    Your telling me Jared Kushner is not acting as a middle man to Isreal and getting kickbacks?

    • Replies: @Ukraine Tiger
  11. You heard it here first. The democrats knew all along that this bad stuff about Biden was real but they had no chance to win with the other losers. So, the order was given to the others to drop from the raise and let straw man Biden beat Bernie. If Biden gets elected, the democrats will bring all Biden’s dirt up, impeach him and govern from the shadows through Kamala, who has no principles and a questionable character (she slept with Willie in order to move up).

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
    , @bjondo
  12. Anon[115] • Disclaimer says:

    Sure a criminal can be elected president. In the world of democratic party politics anything is possible including the re-election of democratic politicians who support the looting, burning down of businesses including violence against the people who own those businesses. Not even an apology is required or expected by democrat politicians for their support of criminals. When one is under the protection of the huge leftist apparatus that runs the U.S., the privileges are truly a blessing, including the full support of a humongous media propaganda complex in the service of democrat politicians.Biden is fully supported.

  13. Since the US isn’t a “democracy” or a “republic”, while this political circus of fake elections and partisan stupidity unfolds amidst the media-fueled chaos, the terrorist Ziocorporate regime will keep on working to roll out operation Warp Speed in full force regardless of which of the puppet figurines get “elected”, the Fed, AIPAC and Pentagon/CIA contractors will still be dictating policy through their “advisors”, and the rest of the world is going keep being driven further into disorder.

    What a sad state of affairs that this wasteful circus show organised by the handler overclass is considered to be the pinnacle of human progress, and at the same time its absurdity borders the comical, it looks more fake than the “democracies” with kings and queens of Europe and no different from a season finale of the Kardashians with the public voting on their cellphones for the winner of the reality show.

    Expressing contempt towards bipartisanship doesn’t begin to describe what the people should be doing to this system that taxes everyone but the overclass to fund mass surveillance, endless world policing and fake elections.

    • Agree: Ann Nonny Mouse
  14. This has dramatically, for the moment, turned the tables of election 2020.

    LoL. Where does Ron find clowns like this?

    Racist Hitler is on the way out, of that you may be sure.


    Imagine opposing expertise like this. Just because reasons. Racist reasons!

  15. “her business partner, former president Bill Clinton, sold himself for international speeches…and access to Hillary’s State Department. And, during Biden’s tenure as VP.”

    Steady on, Brett! Take a deep breath and … punctuate!

  16. AndrewR says:

    This reads like an article written by someone who wants to work at Breitbart but doesn’t meet their quality standards.

    • Replies: @bjondo
  17. Carlos22 says:

    The dems don’t want Biden for president they just want him to win then they’ll replace him.

    He has the early stages of dementia he called Trump George Bush the other day.

    I believe the dems are bringing in legislation to replace an unfit president. They have the luxury of pretending its for Trump and not their own guy for the moment.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  18. Tom Welsh says:

    “… Can A Criminal Be Inaugurated President?”

    There are precedents. At least 40 of them.

    One might argue that being a criminal is a prerequisite for becoming an official candidate.

    • Agree: Notsofast
  19. The timing of the weeks four separate bombshells alleging a Biden family pay-to-play scheme mimic off course the effects of the July 22 and November 6th, 2016 Wikileaks pre-election revelations.

    Though I’m going to vote for him, there are a few things that really bother me about Trump. One of them is that he’s left Julian Assange hung out to dry. Shameful. He needs to do the right thing and preemptively pardon him. His administration is the outlaw here with its completely illegal prosecution of this guy.

    https://theintercept.com/2020/10/06/julian-assange-trial-extradition/

    The fact that the NYT and the rest of the MSM are ignoring his extradition should tell you just how evil our effort to extradite him here really is.

    • Replies: @Lee
  20. Please, Mr. Redmayne, we are talking politicians here. If they decide to give Joe the old heave-hoe, it will result in President Harris. The most likely case will be Sleepy Joe dying in his sleep somewhere around Christmas, unless they decide to drag his carcass on for a couple years to maximise Harris’ Constitutional term while dismantling any restrictions on it, as they had hoped to do for Barack.

  21. The article did not in any way suggest ,as you say, that…

    a state can impose an additional requirement for federal office.

    An objection by a state within the Electoral College is not a new requirement… it is an existing constitutional option.

    Further, yes, the constitutional process of Impeachment can be functionally distinct from the use of the term “Impeachment”.

    However, the use of the 25th Amendment to remove a president due to incapacity is a valid potential means of removal, which is exactly why it was originally crafted. You should remember that, early in Trump’s presidency, the Dems and their media took a long look at this option. Further, it has already be assessed by many that the DNC’s own end game might be to use the 25th to remove Biden in favor of Harris. This is old news that you have obviously missed.

  22. @Hephaestion

    What a moronic article.

    On the contrary, it may well turn out to be one of the more perceptive articles of this election season. If anything it missed at least one other important possibility. Now, unfortunately, it seems to be the House Speaker’s responsibility to certify one’s eligibility to become president and that may complicate things unduly. However, there does seem to be the requirement for a rather high-level security clearance and pretty much any plain reading of that requirement precludes Mr. Biden.

    Hunter Biden has knowingly had dealings with a Chinese intelligence agent, and one who was under surveillance by the FBI. He has accepted “forgivable” loans from Chinese businessmen associated with the CCP. (What is a forgivable loan other than a gift?) He has apparently acted as a personal attorney for Chairman Xi, I believe, in a Chinese bid to buy into the Russian state energy company, Rosneft, which was under U.S. sanctions. He has brokered meetings between Burisma executives and his father while his father was Vice-President. He has taken subterfuge actions to avoid having to come under FIRA registration requirements. And now it appears Joe Biden lied when he denied knowing about his son’s business dealings with Ukraine and China. He was actually involved up to his ears.

    Then there is the wee matter of potential blackmail. Hunter’s laptop allegedly contains sex tapes showing Hunter involved in extreme sexual abuse of Chinese children. It seems rather likely the CCP has those or similar tapes themselves. This goes well beyond the rationale of possible lying to Vice-President Pence that Obama holdover Sally Yates offered for the firing of Michael Flynn in early 2017. She admitted telling the White House that the then-National Security Adviser could be “blackmailed by the Russians,” because he misled the vice president about his “problematic” conduct in speaking with the Russian ambassador.

    As they say in Peoria, don’t let your standing order for popcorn lapse.

  23. Anyone with a long memory will remember how the Hillary Dems tried to subvert the Electoral College in 2016. It didn’t work that well then. But it did set a precedent that will unmask their duplicity in protesting any Republican attempts to do the same this year.

    That attempt was actually Miss Hillary’s second tactic in the four-year long attempted coup against the President. Her first was to join the Green Party in demanding recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That failed rather abysmally as well, because IMHO it was threatening to uncover rather massive Dem cheating in the original vote count.

    We should, of course, keep in mind that the Dems are threatening a full-scale “color revolution” if Mr. Trump doesn’t concede when they tell him to. They seem quite willing to destroy the country. Hillary has told Biden not to concede under any circumstances. And Pelosi seems ready to impeach Justice Barrett is she refuses Democrat demands to recuse herself from any election issues.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  24. Erebus says:

    I’m not versed in the US Constitution’s legal minutiae regarding presidential elections, but it’s clear that the “laptop from hell” will play a significant role in American politics going forward whether Redmayne-Titley’s constitutional analysis is correct or not.

  25. Anonymous[329] • Disclaimer says:

    As has been pointed out, impeachment and the 25th Amendment are two different and mutually exclusive situations.

    Neither Biden nor Trump have been “convicted” of anything, so screw that noise.

    And the 25th Amendment only comes into play after inauguration. And as long as Harris is alive at the time Pelosi is irrelevant.

    Jeez, the writer is an idiot. I’ve barely scraped the surface of his idiocy.

    Words cannot convey the disappointment this article elicited in me.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  26. @Peripatetic Itch

    Thank you for your comment and further presentation of the allegations against Biden, which I elected not to include due to the need for brevity and that much of this is now easily available to the reader for further information.

    Yes, as you correctly add, a top level security clearance is a necessity for a POTUS and Biden’s likely national duplicity of allegiance would make this very much compromised.

    As the article confirms, a convicted criminal may still be elected POTUS, however the charge of “Moral Turpitude” does not go away at any time afterwards and more importantly remains a very possible statutory bar to any state that see Biden’s actions fitting that description.

    Thank you for providing additional details for which my presentation did not have room for inclusion.

    Regards, B.R-T.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Tom Thumb
  27. Anonymous[329] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Now, unfortunately, it seems to be the House Speaker’s responsibility to certify one’s eligibility to become president and that may complicate things unduly. However, there does seem to be the requirement for a rather high-level security clearance and pretty much any plain reading of that requirement precludes Mr. Biden.

    Wow. No, you’re wrong about everything. For your penance, read a book.

  28. MLK says:
    @Hephaestion

    For those interested in brushing up on a contested election, the following recent article is a good primer:

    https://americanmind.org/essays/what-happens-if-no-one-wins/

    And this one published in October 1980:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/80oct/deadlock.htm

    Both reveal that this author is in way over his head. Few of us aren’t.

    I won’t reinvent the wheel again. Suffice it to say for our purposes here that once they were unable to stop Trump from taking the oath, the reputation and electoral prospects of the Democrat Party have been expected to take one for team Resistance.

    The Democrats have spent the last four years increasing their capacity to steal the election. Other than this and once again having more money than Midas, I assess them as weaker in all the other relevant factors. Most especially the thorough discrediting of Allied Media needed to pull it off after election night.

    While it’s been memory-holed, they had substantial plans and capacity in 2016, which proved a bridge too far on election night, forcing them to go to Plan B after delaying the call for a few hours.

    Also forgotten is Trump’s election night statement that “Hillary has suffered enough.” That peace offering was spurned and Trump won’t repeat this mistake. In other words, if Trump appears the winner on election night, as I expect as the more likely outcome at this point, Biden will either publicly concede and be able to depart the field, or all bets are off.

    Of course their plan was always intended to eventuate in President Harris. If Biden were to win, or lose within an Electoral College margin they can steal, he’ll be moved out once way or another. But then this factional war will continue to rage for at least another four years as Trump declares his intention to run in 2024.

  29. @Billthegeek

    The democrats knew all along that this bad stuff about Biden was real but they had no chance to win with the other losers.

    I think you missed the real reason for them choosing Biden. The top Democrats (Obama and/or Miss Hillary) well knew about and colluded with Biden in his corrupt and highly enriching business dealings. They could see that several prominent Dems, as well as themselves perhaps, were going down if the Biden corruption was exposed. They put their heads together and decided their best defense was to make Biden a candidate and then the nominee. That way Trump could be accused of political witch-hunting if he continued the Giuliani investigation in the Ukraine. This strategy segued directly into the impeachment proceedings.

    The never-to-be-named impeachment whistleblower, Eric C., had been intimately involved with the dirty tricks emanating out of Ukraine and directed against Trump in the 2016 election. The impeachment had the side benefit of hiding CIA perfidy in that black op.

    • Agree: TKK, Skeptikal
  30. @Anonymous

    The trolls are out in force today.

  31. @unit472

    I would very much like to read the reference you suggest, since during my research for this article it remained unclear, should the Electoral College substantially object, what specific law would prescribe who would take over as POTUS in the interim, because this would be uncharted constitutional ground.

    Your comment, in my view of the research, is indeed the most plausible possibility, but without confirmation I did not include this speculation.

    Providing this as an addendum to this article, and the reader, would be most welcome.

    Regards, B.R-T.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  32. @Zarathustra

    You obviously didn’t READ the article.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  33. We will not permit the criminally corrupt vote rigging, cheating Communist Demonrats to take over this country…a Civil War would be preferable

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  34. @Tor597

    Every politician in a position to actually take the presidency in the USA is bound to support Israel. They don’t get the financial support without acknowledging their support for Israel.

  35. M.Anthony says:

    I’m no cheerleader for Trump, but there’s no way I would ever vote for an aging, wrinkling, troglodyte fossil like Biden, who’s spent nearly five decades in service to the swamp. Now, all of a sudden, he “has a plan” and is going to finally “fix” the country.

    For me, on a scale of 1 to 10, this election is between a zero and a 1. That’s our choice.

    It’s really too bad for us the American people because Trump had his chances the last four years. But as other commenters here have stated, we are not going to be able to vote ourselves out of this mess, and I agree completely.

    Oh, and by the way, Kamala isn’t black.

  36. Ugetit says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    He has accepted “forgivable” loans from Chinese businessmen associated with the CCP. (What is a forgivable loan other than a [tax free] gift?)

    This is, far and away, the best observation I have ever read, anywhere. If folks could only understand that key concept they would at least have a clue as to what’s going on not that anything would improve for us productive class fools.

    Some excellent comments on this thread!

    • Agree: Twodees Partain, Alden
    • Thanks: Peripatetic Itch
  37. @MLK

    Thank you for providing an interesting addendum to this article for consideration. The first reference you present, however, seems mostly applicable to my premise, rather than a challenge.

    In my view, this is because that author of your reference fails to look at the unique circumstances of Objection by any state on constitutional grounds. Your reference does not address this possible eventuality, preferring to look correctly at the routine counting of the popular vote as applied to the Electoral College vote count. Again, I take to exception to that argument, but find that it does not challenge the premise of my article specifically, possible because this would be a unique and untried constitutional conundrum.

    Certainly food for thought, however. Thank You. B.R-T.

    • Replies: @MLK
  38. fenster says:

    I tried to follow the legal contours of the author’s argument and ended up with more questions than answers.

    He puts a lot of stock in the ability of states to object to the slate being read out in Congress as the electoral votes are tallied. I searched for some back-up to the broad claims made about a full state objection and could not find anything.

    3 U.S.C. 15 establishes the procedures for objections.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

    Objections can be made to individual votes or to an entire state slate. But I don’t see that states as a whole may object. Objections are to be made by at least one member of the Senate and one member of the House, and not necessarily from the same state. And whereas the author says the objection is to be taken up in Joint Session it seems from my reading that upon the filing of an objection the matter is taken up by the two houses separately, setting off a lot of odd ricochets in terms of how that process is worked through.

    Moreover, according to this summary of the objection process put out by the Congressional Research Service

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32717.pdf

    it is not at all clear to me that an objection on the grounds that the author proposes are within the scope of what constitutes a legitmate objection. It does not jump off the page to me that a state can just say “well, I changed my mind.” Whether a run-in with the law in January by Biden–conviction or just a bad report–would allow a state to send in another slate seems very unclear.

    There was an odd situation in 1961 in which Hawaii certified a slate for Nixon but then, in a recount, realized that Kennedy won. So the state sent a new slate in. What would happen? Nixon was presiding as President of the Senate. Rather than go through a convoluted process of separate sessions to take the matter up he asked for unanimous consent to accept the arguably non-legal second submission, the first having been the one that got there by the book. He asked for this with the caveat that it not be viewed as precedent.

    Score one for finesse. Which is a reminder that, while I don’t follow the author’s legal argument in the particulars this area is very open-ended. The rules cannot dictate an outcome when the matter is a legislative one. I think there will always been a lot of room for movement in this sphere, so I appreciate that general notion suggested by the author. Lots could happen.

    I also think it is a good idea to consider the ways that the Biden issue can play out after the election. It is not just about swinging votes. I don’t know if the author’s speculations are on point but for sure the Trump side ought to be weighing the leverage it has if the election turns into a legal mud wrestling contest.

    • Replies: @Brett Redmayne-Titley
  39. Biden is just there for the inauguration. Dementia is going to be the reason to ditch Joe. No politician, appointed bureaucrat, or judge wants to touch the corruption angle. They all partake influence peddling for the corporate cheaters and bigwig foreigners. I really wish I were just being cynical here.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  40. Fu*k all the naysayers here. I think this was a very good article pointing out all the likelihoods and legal wranglings that are not only possible but probable following this circus we in America call “free elections of the most qualified among us”. My bet is the author even missed a few rabbits that will be pulled from the political party hats.

    As @Peripatetic Itch so eloquently stated: don’t let your standing order for popcorn lapse

    • Agree: Ugetit, Alden
  41. Hegar says:

    Sounds like you have been reading Qanon websites.

    “This pre-election day chess move is an obvious, carefully planned Trump campaign”

    We are back to 3D chess again?

    How can you possibly imagine this to be “carefully planned” when it’s dropped after more than 50 million votes have been cast? You only wish that Trump would have planned it. Trump did nothing. He didn’t even fight social media that banned the top accounts of the nationalists on Twitter who supported his buried agenda.

    “a three-move check-mate against Joe Biden, but … after the votes are counted.”

    No, none of what you say will happen. If Trump loses the election he can do nothing.

    “Trump’s handlers … this possible coup”

    Here’s the hat, made of top-quality tinfoil.

    “The Trump campaign knows this and appears to be playing the long game. Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon are not political fools.”

    Back in the real world, Steve Bannon is not part of Trump’s campaign. Trump fired him at the request of leftist Jews Jared Kushner and Gary Cohn.

    Trump allowed Jared Kushner to push for a pro-immigration cuckservative in the Virginia special election, against Steve Bannon’s candidate, to crush Bannon’s emerging status as a campaign organizer. Kushner was in daily contact with the cuckservative campaign.

    Trump then smeared Bannon on Twitter as “Sloppy Steve” and ridiculed him in other ways.

    This after Steve Bannon was the one who invented the MAGA agenda. He was the one who came up with the Wall, as an undeniable sign that Trump was serious about stopping immigration. (And then Trump signed Ryan’s omnibus bill, specifically banning Wall funding.) It was also Bannon who came up with protectionism in trade with China, and with the wildly popular infrastructure push that Trump ditched.

    There hasn’t been any 3D chess since the 2015-2016 campaign. After that Trump has for most of the time been in survival mode, pleasing Sheldon Adelson and Netanyahu to provent the Congress GOP from joining the Democrats in impeaching him.

  42. Mammy Harris presidency would be a Jewish presidency being that she fellates a Jew, unless, she is a closeted dyke a la Hillary and is only married to an aging man for the sake of fooling the idiotic voters of California. And as to AG Barr, you just remember, he is a half Jew and that is all it takes to switch the side, so, count him out to help the orange man.

  43. Hibernian says:
    @Brett Redmayne-Titley

    “…a top level security clearance is a necessity for a POTUS…”

    Which he can easily grant to himself.

  44. Hibernian says:

    Mr. Redmayne-Tilley, what you’re suggesting, if implemented, would be the surest way to ensure eternal Left Wing rule of America beginning on January 20, 2025 at the latest.

  45. @Nuncle

    I’m thinking Carter. And just look where it got him…

    • Replies: @Notsofast
  46. Dumbo says:

    Biden at this point looks like this character in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”:

  47. @fenster

    Thank you kindly for your comment which is very well presented as additional food for thought regarding my premise. I had hoped that my article would generate thoughtful additional discussion, which is the point here at UR, so thank you.

    I was not aware of your ’61 example of Hawaii and Nixon, which as you state was not suggested as a precedent, and might be the closest functional example to my presentation.

    As you suggest, should this all play out in the EC, it will do so without precedent and on new constitutional grounds. I would acknowledge MLK’s thoughtful comment( #28) which, although tangential, has much to offer in looking for the constitutional key to this upcoming impasse.

    Regards, B.R-T.

  48. MLK says:
    @Brett Redmayne-Titley

    For anyone interested, here’s a quick summary of the Court’s ruling in the Faithless Electors cases deriving from 2016:

    https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-safeguards-electoral-college

    In the challenges this year to voting procedures the pre-ACB Court has rejected interventions by federal but not state courts. The three conservative justices have signaled that it is state legislatures, not state courts or Governor, who control election law and thus for our purposes here that state’s electors.

  49. eD says:

    The United States Constitution for the federal government is short (unusually so for these types of documents) and accessible online. The relevant parts for the election of a president are Article 2, Section 1, as amended by the 12th and 20th amendments. The 20th amendment affects the dates only, the 12th amendment change was significant.

    None of these passages mention at security clearances, the Speaker of the House, or the other things the original poster and some of the commentators are going on about. I think its a good idea for lurkers and potential commentators to just look up the relevant sections and read them for themselves. The 25th amendment, which was also mentioned, allows for temporary installment of an acting president to replace a president who is incapacitated, but neither dead nor convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors, so not removable from office. However, it has nothing to do with presidential elections.

    All that out of the way, this is a highly relevant topic. I suspect the play here is regime change, and not installment of a particular pol in the White House. The idea is to create enough chaos that an entirely new constitutional regime is then installed to restore order. That would explain the selection of a challenger who has obvious health and corruption issues, but blocking the re-election of the incumbent.

    The US Constitution, especially in the parts adopted in the 18th and early 19th century, is remarkably vague. The relevant language states that if no presidential candidate wins a majority (not plurality) of the electors “appointed”, the House of Representatives will chose from among the top three vote getters in the Electoral College. The vote is taken by state delegation, and the winner needs a majority of state delegations, now 26. The 12th Amendment provides for a temporary acting president if there is no winner by the end of the incumbent’s term.

    Electors are appointed by the states “in a manner as their legislatures will direct”. One question, which may be relevant, is whether an artificial lack of a majority in the Electoral College can be created by preventing states from “appointing” slates of electors. In that circumstance, if a candidate not listed on the ballot in November receives the vote of one or more “faithless” electors, that person could conceivably be elected by the House of Representatives. However, the language of the 12th Amendment indicates that the majority has to be of the “appointed” electors, not of the 535 electors that would potentially be available, which would make this unlikely.

    A majority of state delegations in the House are Republican, and this is not likely to change, but I wouldn’t trust much of the GOP establishment, or even Trump himself, not to be in on any schemes.

    In a disputed election, the Senate simply elects the Vice President from the two top vote getters. Though the media keeps claiming otherwise, the Republicans will almost certainly retain their Senate majority. Vice Presidential candidates have no relevance whatsoever to the process until the Electors vote on December 14th. If a presidential candidate dies or drops out beforehand, his electors just vote for someone else, not necessarily the designated vice presidential candidate of that party, and this situation actually occurred when the losing presidential candidate died before the electoral college vote in 1872, so there is a precedent.

    It is true that in 1876 a presidential candidate who almost certainly would have lost under normal conditions was installed in the White House, but the process involved some electors appointed directly by a state legislature, federal military occupation of some of the states voting, a disputed election, multiple slates of electors from some states, and an extraordinary commission. Plus the non-presidential party agreed to take the loss in return for policy concessions that meant the presidential party couldn’t pull the stunt in the future.

    • Replies: @Brett Redmayne-Titley
  50. @Ukraine Tiger

    You do not understand.
    With my first sentence I have indicated that nobody will push the issue.

  51. @Hangnail Hans

    So we MUST support this woman because she is black? All you had to do was post a photo of her and you feel like you’ve made your case. God, how did our people become so pathetic?

    • Agree: TKK
    • Replies: @Polistra
  52. @Peripatetic Itch

    All of the arguments you make are political reasons not to support Biden. Fair enough, but they have nothing to do with constitutional procedures or the law.

    There’s no requirement for a security clearance. By definition the President is entitled to classified information. Again, the ONLY requirements for federal office are those listed in the Constitution. Ted Kaczynski could be elected President, even from Supermax prison.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  53. @eD

    Thanks eD, for an excellent addition to the article which I hoped would generate quality discussion of the possible eventualities should this all end up in the EC.

    If a presidential candidate dies or drops out beforehand, his electors just vote for someone else, not necessarily the designated vice presidential candidate of that party, and this situation actually occurred when the losing presidential candidate died before the electoral college vote in 1872, so there is a precedent.

    This would, however, be more in keeping with DNC designs, and not quite the same as a state objecting on constitutional grounds which necessitates a separate hearing on the issue by the both Houses of Congress. As a result, can a state then renege on its previously certified slate of Elector’s votes? Other thoughtful comments are in keeping with your presentation of precedent and the state resubmitting a new CofA after the hearing. If, so this does favor Trump nor the DNC’s very simplistic view of their wishful use of the EC.

    Using your example applied to mine regarding the democrat state of Georgia, it would seem that Georgia could, per my conjecture, indeed object and refile for Trump since there is not in 2020 a viable third candidate as option.

    Thanks for your addition. Regards, B.R-T.

  54. @MLK

    “The democrats have spent the last four years increasing their capacity to steal the election.”

    Well, didn’t the rapidly deteriorating Biden let the cat out of the bag when he said his campaign has assembled: “The most extensive and inclusive voter fraud scheme in the history of American politics.”

    His handlers were quick to spin his comment, explaining that it was just another Biden gaffe. And that’s how the lying scum media reported it. Alternatively, could it have been, in his growing senility, a Freudian slip in which the old man inadvertently told the truth?

    • Agree: Chaco Cortes
    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  55. GeeBee says:
    @anon

    Has Any Hyphenated-Named Writer Been Worth Reading?

    While I cordially detest Winston Spencer-Churchill, I would never claim that his ability as a writer was such as to make him unworthy of reading.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
  56. GeeBee says:
    @Brett Redmayne-Titley

    It’s actually very simple, in that this provision is made under the twentieth amendment to the US Constitution. It is thus anything but ‘uncharted constitutional ground’.

    • Replies: @Brett Redmayne-Titley
  57. Tom Thumb says:
    @Brett Redmayne-Titley

    The President needs no security clearance whatsoever, as he himself is the ultimate security clearance maker.

    He is the top dog, the big cheese, the head honcho, the chief, numero uno, the big enchilada, the top kahuna, the big fish, the big gun, the boss, the big wig, the top banana, the grand poo-bah….

  58. @anon

    Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Carter.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
    , @Notsofast
  59. @Carlos22

    The dems don’t want Biden for president they just want him to win then they’ll replace him.

    Well there are parallels elsewhere. In Britain, (((Lord Janner))) suddenly became senile, so it was determined that it would be unfair to prosecute him in child sexual abuse charges dating back decades. The real problem was not Janner himself, but where the prosecution might lead during its investigation.

    • Replies: @carlos22
  60. @Tom Thumb

    If that were true, the American people would be viewing a mountain of unredacted docs related to the ongoing soft coup efforts right now.

    That’s just one of many instances where the president’s vast powers, even as Commander-in-Chief, have been set aside by the even more expansive authority of the Deep State, the administrative state, the top guns, the bureaucracy, the shadow govt, the IC…

  61. Ugetit says:
    @GeeBee

    While I cordially detest Winston Spencer-Churchill, I would never claim that his ability as a writer was such as to make him unworthy of reading.

    Another reason to detest, with vigor, that scheming phony scum of the Earth is that not only did an actor deliver his “great” radio broadcasts, but a lot of his stuff was apparently ghost written, at least according to M.S. King. He was probably too drunk most of the time to speak intelligibly, or hold a pen in any case.

    Also, I’ve read some of his inanities and it’s worth reading, not because of any ability on his part, but to understand what a pile of *bleep* he was. E.g., his letters to Stalin, though unbearably sappy, annoyingly turgid, and intolerably inane, are great for that reason. Fair Warning: It’s largely an exercise in self torture. To wade through that crap requires a highly masochistic personality which I must have.

    For similar reasons I also recommend that people familiarize themselves with the letters of Marx. What a puffed-up fraud that joker was! Doubtless a mouthpiece, like Winnie was, for the One World Mafia.

  62. @GeeBee

    The key word in the 20th is that of “qualification.” While it does say that the VP elect could takeover until the president is chosen, that VP, too, must be qualified. From knowing and writing about Harris, it would be just as easy for the RNC to drop a similar tranche of emails on her.

    Further, the 20th also allows for the congress to at any time approve different/ new qualifications for both POTUS and VP. Certainly this would not happen before Jan 6, but before that time the 20th does not bar the 12th from allowing a state’s Elector’s from objecting. If so, any objecting state, if the allegations are proven, could change their EC CofA and that change would have to be for Trump as the only other registered candidate. This can shift the final EC vote count in Trumps favor.

    Further, should a state object and the matter be heard in the combined Houses, would a negative result for Biden still allow the Congress to permit Harris to prevail, since her only “qualification” would be that of being on the ticket? That would be political suicide for any member of Congress, after the debacle of dealing with Biden.

    What is the lynch pin, is whether the allegations prove true. If they are, the mere will of the American people, not the 20th will force a new direction on Congress daily before the Jan 20 inaugural because by then Americans on both sides of the aisle want Biden out.

    • Replies: @Jmaie
  63. @Hephaestion

    There’s no requirement for a [presidential] security clearance.

    OK, that may well be true in a formal sense. But neither is there a formal requirement for a security clearance for supreme-court justices. Nevertheless, if you were paying attention to the recent Barrett confirmation hearings, you would have heard the chairman of the Judiciary Committee state that the committee would meet in camera after the public hearings to get security-clearance reports on the candidate from the intelligence community. So in effect there is not a clear distinction between the political and the security situation. Or, put another way, everything is political.

    As well it would be difficult to deny that alleged concerns about Trump’s allegiances were a major part of the case for the appointment of the Mueller special counsel in 2017. The Steele Dossier, with its allegations of pee tapes and Russian prostitutes, were also a major part of the FBI’s applications for FISA warrants against members of Trump’s campaign team. If Mueller had uncovered anything to substantiate Democrat allegations that Trump was but Putin’s puppet, the high crimes and misdemeanors clause would have led to a rapid impeachment. The president can not grant himself impunity from a charge of treason any more than he can pardon himself.

    Issues like this are only taken up by the courts when there is an active case, so perhaps there will be surprises when the issues go to the Supreme Court. Perhaps also, that may explain why Pelosi already wants to impeach Justice Barrett.

  64. anon[437] • Disclaimer says:

    Special counsel. Nerf battle scripted by CIA. Fuck that pussy patty-cake shit. You want arch-prig Ken Starr pursing his lips at Hunter popping preteen cherries, or do you wanna knock them out?

    What you do is this. Now, before the election, request mutual legal assistance under CTOC Article 18. From Ukraine, from Russia, from China, from everywhere Hunter set foot. No Ken Starr, no “Child sexual exploitation’s OK but fatty-blowjobs, that’s where I draw the line.” You want competent investigators from grown-up meritocratic countries on your side. You want the goods on transnational organized crime. There will be a mushroom cloud where Biden was. Where Brennan was. Where Gina was.

    If Trump won’t fight, he deserves everything he gets. He can go play kiss of the spider woman with Don Siegelman.

    Do not bring a supersoaker to this gunfight.

  65. Ugetit says:
    @Gidoutahere

    Eisenhower…

    Not just a criminal, but a war criminal, and guilty of massive crimes against humanity. And a puppet for the One World Mafia. If you think that’s hyperbole, then please justify that mediocrity’s participation in the war on anti-Communists and his treatment of both Russian and German POWs after the fighting stopped.

    If it were otherwise he would have experienced a Patton, Forrestal, or Kennedy moment.

    • Agree: Mikael_
  66. Notsofast says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    i think your nailing it here. the investigation into bidens role in ukraine was begun long before his candidacy. when the dems found out that’s when they went into impeachment histrionics. their only hope was to ride the impeachment bandwagon until the primaries. with the conveniently timed corona virus hysteria, they hoped to able to obfuscate both biden and obamas crimes as well as the maleficence of the deep state. if they can shove joe biden up our ass and continue the memory holing and putin blaming it all goes away forever in 65 days.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  67. @follyofwar

    Alternatively, could it have been, in his growing senility, a Freudian slip in which the old man inadvertently told the truth?

    How dare you, if I may paraphrase Miss St. Greta, contradict the official media fact-checkers, who say there is no real issue with Democrat voter fraud? And pushing the senility trope at the same time… OMG

    Come to think of it, your adherence to that old-fashioned, passé concept of “the truth” will shortly get you locked up if you were to bring it up over, say, a dinner-table conversation in post-modern Scotland. LOL

    • Thanks: follyofwar
  68. eD says:

    The qualifications to be a president are to be a natural born citizen who is at least 35 years old, and alive. Period.

    What “natural born citizen” means is disputed, because in recent decades the USA has had an unusual number of presidential candidates who either were born outside the country, or had a non-American or non-citizen parent, or both. The tendency has been to allow anyone with at least one parent who was an American citizen to qualify. But its just this and the age limitation. The only major party nominee in American history to have electoral votes for him disqualified, on the grounds that the candidate was not qualified to be come president, was Horace Greeley in 1872. The issue in that election was that Greeley was dead when three electors attempted to vote for him. Even then there was some argument about whether this was allowed.

    The “natural born citizen” qualification was put in due to the experience of Poland, which had an elective monarchy, and which was being run into the ground by non-Polish aristocrats bribing the electors to be elected King of Poland, and who were obviously not interested in the welfare of the Poles.

    A presidential candidate whose electors made up the majority of the electoral college, but who was credibly revealed to be a spy for a foreign power, would not be disqualified as long as he or she was a natural born citizen and over 35 years of age. The electors would still vote. The issue would be handled, assuming enough people had problems with this, by his own electors voting for someone else, or by impeachment and removal shortly after taking office.

    After a record number of faithless electors in 2016, many states passed laws directing their electors to vote for the candidate they were pledge to, and the Supreme Court upheld these laws. However, either there is no penalty or only a fine, so effectively they are unenforceable. By the time an elector has voted, the elector has already been certified by their state government.

  69. Wow, lefty Glenn Greenwald resigned from “The Intercept” after editors censored his article about Biden’s e-mails.

    Today I sent my intention to resign from The Intercept, the news outlet I co-founded in 2013 with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, as well as from its parent company First Look Media.

    The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.

    The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.

    https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept

  70. Notsofast says:
    @Sollipsist

    maybe he wasn’t when he went in but he was when he came out. being president turns anyone into a war criminal. by picking brzezinski as national security advisor and listening to his advice he set us on the neo-con warpath. arming the mujahideen makes him complicit in all their war crimes. they later morphed into al-Qaida and islamic state. no one can become president without being or being turned into a war criminal.

  71. Anonymous[933] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hans Scott

    You’ve been doing it for decades..

  72. We Americans are in for one hell of a post election period here, regardless of the outcome.

    https://naturalterraist.blogspot.com/2020/10/decision-america-trump-or-swamp.html

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  73. @Carlton Meyer

    Not surprising.

    I, today, received a scathing email from Gordon Duff editor of Veterans Today who wrote about my article:

    It appears to be a disinformation piece wrongly couched in a weak tome regarding the electoral process. The meat of the piece seems to be a calculated deception to raise as many issues to help Trump and his Zionist masters as possible. I am getting spam like this all the time now, articles based on GOP “talking points.” Just before an election I would expect to be offered cash to place something like this or, if I were to write it, a huge paycheck. The Hunter Biden story is fake. Minutes ago, we found Tucker Carlson’s story about stolen papers fake as well, UPS just delivered them a day late.

    I very politely challenged Duff to provide just one fact that would refute the allegations against Biden, to which he replied,

    It is not for me to disprove, it is for you to substantiate

    Such are the excuses for censorship of this story.

    As to Greenwald and the Intercept, considering his rag has not offered one word countering the MSM narrative on Covid19, ever, his outraged departure certainly adds to the overall claims of massive media censorship since he was good at it himself.

    As I said in reply to Gordon Duff, and this should be asked of every publication not examining the allegations with facts;

    I ask you for facts and you give me unfounded accusations of my work, and not one word to refute the Biden story? I expected better. Just one fact is all I asked for….and you couldn’t do it. Why is that?

    At this point it is the censorship more than any one allegation that is providing legitimacy to the Biden story. Perhaps to my analysis as well.

  74. Loup-Bouc says:

    How many commenters did not read Hephaestion’s comment of October 29, 2020 at 3:49 am GMT (comment # 1)? Hephaestion’s ought to have been the final comment. Naught more needed being said — just as Brett Redmayne-Titley’s article ought not to have been published, anywhere — surely not by Unz Review.

    Brett Redmayne-Titley’s article is flagrantly law-ignorant, near-hallucinatory nonsense blathered with abysmally incompetent language. It embarrasses, ruefully, the Unz Review, and its editor, Mr. Unz.

    How very distressing — the number of commenters who accord the article respect implied by discussing seriously any of the article’s plainly false or risibly absurd pseudo-legal assertions or kindergarten-realpolitik fantasies or dross.

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  75. @Peripatetic Itch

    They could see that several prominent Dems, as well as themselves perhaps, were going down if the Biden corruption was exposed.

    What is now apparent is that Harris is one of those who are going down once Biden’s corruption is exposed. I wonder if the DNC bosses realized that. When the full extent of Biden’s involvement in selling access to his office is exposed, Harris and the Virginia based democrats will be revealed as beneficiaries and co-conspirators in Biden’s corruption.

    The arrogance of democrats is on full display in their assumption that their allies in media will neutralize anything that comes to light about their candidates.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  76. Notsofast says:
    @Gidoutahere

    The kennedy family fortune was built on rum running as jimmy hoffa pointed out to bobby kennedy. Kennedy at least approved the assassination of the president of south vietnam not long before his own assassination. No one becomes president without being or being turned into a war criminal.

  77. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Brett Redmayne-Titley

    As to Greenwald and the Intercept, considering his rag has not offered one word countering the MSM narrative….

    The Intercept is NOT Mr. Greenwald’s “rag.” Mr. Greenwald co-founded The Intercept, but was never its editor or co-editor. Rather often, he disagreed vocally, even harshly, with the contents of articles The Intercept published.

    Before Mr. Greenwald was an excellent journalist, he was an excellent lawyer. For both reasons, he is distinguished very markedly from you.

    You ought offer Glenn Greenwald several pounds of your flesh to induce him to teach you (a) how to comprehend properly the U.S. constitution (which you misperceive or misconstrue egregiously), (b) how to compose an intelligent, logical, rational, factually tenable article put with linguistically sound prose, and (c) how to avoid libeling one of the few actual journalists remaining in the West.

    • Replies: @Mikael_
  78. carlos22 says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Yes peados in high places, all very familiar to today.

  79. Abbybwood says:

    Glenn Greenwald has just resigned from The Intercept because the DNC partisan New York editors refused to publish his article regarding the Hunter/ Joe Biden scandal:

    https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept

    Furthermore, the editors demanded that Greenwald not publish his article at any other publication, even though by his contract at The Intercept he is allowed to do so.

    He had other reasons for resigning which are detailed in the above link.

    And the article that was censored will be published at the link above in short order.

    I am sure Glenn going on with Tucker Carlson from time to time also ticked off the editors at The Intercept.

  80. How come nobody discusses the fact that Joe Biden plagiarized Maureen Dowd and had to suspend his presidential campaign in 1988?

    • Replies: @Jmaie
  81. “Over in Georgia, a Democrat stronghold, their bar is lower, disqualifying anyone who has been convicted of a crime “about moral turpitude.”

    Do you pay ANY attention to US politics on the state level? The State of Georgia hasn’t been a democrat stronghold in many many years. Republican Gov, two republican senators, majority of reps are also republican. The whole damn state is way more red than you think and recent elections prove it.

    No credibility after reading that ripe…

    • Replies: @Majority of One
  82. @Loup-Bouc

    Fuck off Froot Loop.

    Why haven’t you moved to West Baltimore from Beaverton OR yet?

  83. @Old and Grumpy

    I agree with your view. As to being cynical, sometimes facing facts looks like cynicism.

    • Agree: Ugetit
  84. anon[103] • Disclaimer says:

    There’s one key word missing in this article. It doesn’t show up until the comments – which is why the comments here are priceless.

    CIA.

    Anything you do, as presidential figurehead, is futile – unless you accept that you’re not fighting Democrats, you’re fighting CIA.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2020/10/19/patrick-lawrence-the-damage-russiagate-has-done/

    This a coup just like CIA’s coups against JFK and Reagan. All that’s different this time is, DCIs are too cowardly to shoot another president, having done it twice and failed the second time. CIA will keep trying to oust presidents until the SIS is drawn and quartered, just like traitors in the old days.

  85. Petermx says:

    LOL. Funny article. Yes sure, it’s all made up. There is no hard drive, no emails, no money exchanged hands and Tony Bobulinski is a paid actor. If that is the case Biden should step forward fast and explain things. Maybe it’s odd, but I feel a little sorry for the Bidens. The left are such huge liars (Russiagate) they must think everyone behaves the way they do.

  86. @W.M. Peterson

    We Americans are in for one hell of a post election period here, regardless of the outcome.

    I’m hoping it’s the fuckin’ bomb.

    I’m not sure the Left understands the level of bottled up hatred they have coming their way.

    It will be like squeezing pus out of a deeply infected wound. Very painful at first, but a feeling of healthy renewal afterwards.

  87. Lee says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    CN said:

    Though I’m going to vote for him, there are a few things that really bother me about Trump. One of them is that he’s left Julian Assange hung out to dry. Shameful.

    Some might suggest that Assange hung himself out to dry. Stupid.

  88. Now I understand why there was a huge push for mail in voting by Mainstream Media and Socialist Media, along with the fake virus lock downs and social distancing creating a demand for mail in.

    More than a few of the mail in Biden voters might want to take their mail in vote back.

    The article is really useful with the details of the Electoral College.

  89. Rico says:

    Find it hard to believe the repair guy even knew who Hunter Biden was (assuming he gave his real name)
    Ditto for making a copy of the contents in case the FBI would sit on it seems way too far-fetched for the average [email protected] repair guy to anticipate.

    Someone else leaked the contents

    • Replies: @Mikael_
  90. bjondo says:
    @Billthegeek

    Old Glory will be spared.

    Trump wins 48 states minimum.

  91. bjondo says:
    @AndrewR

    The only quality standard at Breitbart is to be a lunatic Israeli.

    Redmayne worth reading.

  92. Derer says:
    @Zarathustra

    Show me a politician who one time or the other did not take a bribe.

    Only those who make living from the taxpayers – professional politicians. Democrats like Biden, Harris, both Clintons, Obama are blood sucking parasites got wealthy not from the market place but from the politics.

  93. @Tony Hall

    I agree [fully] with your sentiments, but then I’m reminded of situations like this and this and thus wonder, how will you and I ever achieve a situation where people are on the same page [instead of in different libraries]?

    Both links are to Live Leak

  94. @Tom Thumb

    Tom: Were the CIA to have been presented with your argument on 11-22-63 they would have laughed their scheming deepest state asses off.

  95. @Brett Redmayne-Titley

    Veterans Today is almost certainly a limited-hangout for the deep state intel actors. Duff, a South African by birth, is not even his own man on that site. He is being run by one Ian Greenhalgh, whom I suspect as having ties to Britain’s MI-6 spy agency. I had a bit of a run-in with those boys a few months back when in an e-m exchange with Greenhalgh, he wrote me off because I had deviated from their party-line in a non-public exchange. Since that occasion I have had correspondence with other observers (including on this review) who shared similar misgivings about VT.

  96. @I Live in GA

    Yeah. That one had me scratching my noggin as well. And I live in Minnesota.

  97. Biff says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    I used to be a regular at the Intercept, but years ago it, or more accurately, when Trump got elected, the publication started to take a radical turn in an off hand direction towards mainstream disinformation. And knowing/reading Greenwald since 2005,(anti-war.com used to link to him and that’s how I became a regular reader of his material) I knew the divergence made for strange bedfellows.

    There was one point where the intercept was pumping out strait up Russia-gate theory’s as if they were hard and fast facts, and at the same time Greenwald was debunking them in real time. It took more than cognitive dissonance to digest any or all of it.

    I figured the divorce was only a matter of time…

    BTW, thanks for the link and the heads up. :^)

  98. Polistra says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    Her name and/or the fact that she was finance minister for Nigeria would also have sufficed. And the answer to your question is “mass media brainwashing.”

  99. Alden says:
    @nsa

    Campaign probably picked YMCA because it’s an energetic danceable jumpy clappy just loud enough song. And people are familiar with it. It’s a perfect song for events, carnivals, summer block parties, farmer’s market day, art show in the park, fairs I love it.

  100. denk says:

    Can A Criminal Be Inaugurated President?

    Is that a rhetorical question ?

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/all-us-presidents-living-and-dead-are-war-criminals/5662099

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
  101. Alden says:
    @Hangnail Hans

    She’s just another market mammy LOL

  102. @Zarathustra

    Funny how mega criminals can vie for the highest office of the land but common criminals cannot vote for their senior fellow criminals.

  103. @Hephaestion

    you missed the part about it pertaining to electors, genius.

  104. Jmaie says:
    @Brett Redmayne-Titley

    Further, the 20th also allows for the congress to at any time approve different/ new qualifications for both POTUS and VP.

    Really going to need a cite for this. The 20th refers to the qualifications as set by the constitution – 35 years of age, natural born citizen.

    Biden is more than doubly qualified…

  105. Jmaie says:
    @Brett Redmayne-Titley

    As to Greenwald and the Intercept

    I’ve always wondered at the dichotomy between The Intercept and it’s (co)founder. Greenwald, while certainly a man of the left, writes intelligently and call outs hypocrisy regardless of the source. The Intercept on the other hand…I haven’t visited lately but my usual thought when heading their way was, “Let’s see what idiocy they’re pushing today.” Mostly tinfoil hat territory.

  106. Jmaie says:
    @H. Munster

    Trump famously said he could walk out onto 5th avenue and shoot someone without losing any votes. Today the same is true for Joe Biden – Trump is so hated by Democrats they would vote for him regardless of anything coming out of the Hunter laptops. There could be pics of the father and son smoking crack together and the response would be, “Trump is worse.”

  107. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Brett Redmayne-Titley

    As to Greenwald and the Intercept, considering his rag has not offered one word countering the MSM narrative….

    In my comment of October 29, 2020 at 8:38 pm GMT (comment # 79), I put a general criticism of your libelous or ignorant/flagrantly-reckless statement concerning Glenn Greenwald. Here is a specific debunking wrought by hard evidence not only of the despicable falsehood of your statement but also of the quality of actual journalism (of which you are both incapable and an epitome of its opposite):
    * https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored
    * https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept
    * https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing
    * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8pkCZBjgrk

  108. mike99588 says:
    @Hangnail Hans

    It’s based on nationality. Another 419 scam in the making.

  109. Mikael_ says:

    Absolutely amazing, detailed analysis!

    Thank you very much.

  110. Mikael_ says:
    @MLK

    The first link you provided leads to an article written by John Yoo.
    That name rings any bells? Torture memo??

    Not a reason to unequivocally discard it before reading, but I’d take it at least with a truck-load of salt.

  111. Mikael_ says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    #75, #79, #110

    Comments posted: 3
    Fact-based arguments presented, that refute anything BRT wrote: 0

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  112. MLK says:

    The other link is to a two-part article by Trump deranged Larry Tribe.

    Food for thought for those interested. Though both stand for the proposition, Tribe’s in hindsight and Yoo’s prospectively, that there’s no point in attempting to game this out until after the election.

    My own view is that what was so obvious to everyone — a contested election and all that entails in the present context — if not obviously wrong at this point is at least the less likely outcome than a Trump election night win that is once again too big and broad for the Democrats to steal.

    Indeed, this time Trump will win the popular vote too, pre-wholesale voter fraud by Democrats, of course.

    And, say what you will about Trump, he doesn’t make the same mistakes twice. At least not when it counts. If on election night Trump is the winner, regardless of the certain “Count all the votes” shouting, Biden will be told what time it is. Either he promptly concedes and can avoid legal process, with or without disgorging his ill-gotten gains, or all bets are off.

  113. Mikael_ says:
    @Rico

    The repair guy was tasked to recover the contents of the laptop, i.e. its hard drive(s).

    The obvious way to try recovery is to attempt reading out all data, i.e. make a copy.
    If the guy has enough storage capacity available in his repair shop, he very well might keep the copy until the customer picks up the laptop and doesn’t come back complaining some data is inaccessible, for a few weeks or so.

    Nothing far-fetched on that end.

  114. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Mikael_

    Fact-based arguments….

    Immensely long-winded, copiously error-ridden, ignorant, extensively illogical, linguistically incompetent, dangerous idiocy does not deserve my argument. But in my comment of October 30, 2020 at 7:37 pm GMT (comment # 110), I provided links that show Brett Redmayne-Titley a cretin who utters grossly negligent assertions that effect libel.

    If you read many of my comments posted under other Unz Review articles, you will see that I have been a law professor since 1972 and that brutal, rigorous, evidenced-based argumentation is my norm. But I do not waste my time on deconstructing huge verbal garbage dumps like Brett Redmayne-Titley’s article.

    My disinclination does not draw from disapproval of Trump or support of Biden. I voted for Trump in 2016. Last Tuesday (27 October 2020), I voted for Trump again. Because of the magnitude of error and stupidity of Redmayne-Titley’s article, deconstructing it thoroughly would require about 12,000 words. I have much more worthy work to do.

    I expect this election will be decided in the Supreme Court, or with bloody rebellion — or both. I applaud the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett. I decry the corruption of Chief Justice Roberts. I hope that Trump uses 10 U.S. Code § 252, 10 U.S. Code § 253, and 10 U.S. Code § 254 to suppress insurrection and that enough U.S. military general officers respect the constitution sufficiently to obey his orders issued per 10 U.S. Code § 252 and 10 U.S. Code § 253.

    You can view 10 U.S. Code § 252, 10 U.S. Code § 253, and 10 U.S. Code § 254 at https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim

    10 U.S. Code § 251, too, is marginally pertinent, but practically useless. It would be effectively nugatory in more than half the states — the Democrat-controlled states. It would not operate quickly enough in Republican-controlled states, because it requires that the state’s legislature or governor request that the president send troops or militia. And, its object is limited to suppressing insurrection against the requesting state’s government — not against the federal government.

    You can view also 10 U.S. Code § 251 at https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim

    If — unlike Redmayne-Titley and most Unz Review commenters and authors — you understood the pertinent federal Constitution provisions and apprehended thoroughly and deeply the pertinent history of U.S. federal politics, you would appreciate how flagrantly moronic, and dangerous, is Redmayne-Titley’s article.

    • Replies: @Mikael_
  115. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Mikael_

    Emendation of my comment of October 31, 2020 at 8:53 pm GMT (comment # 117). That comment includes this language:

    10 U.S. Code § 251, too, is marginally pertinent, but practically useless. It would be effectively nugatory in more than half the states — the Democrat-controlled states.

    The phrase “more than half the states” ought to be “about half the states.”

  116. Mikael_ says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Next time if you don’t want to waste your breath, sketch a rough outline of your opinion and provide a link to an old comment of yours where you made a detailed argument supplied by verifiable facts, on matters of law (and hinted at your credentials) so we can see you can make thoughtful arguments. Don’t go full ad hominem without arguments, that just makes you look bad.

    I’ve been on Unz only for 5 months now. I am a refugee from ZH, from where I had to flee due to excessive biased and/or click-bait articles, after being there for 10 years.

    Some introductory remarks:
    The ‘Rule of Law’ is a system. As Jordan B. Peterson explains nicely, “every system is always partially tyrannical, and partly corrupt.” Which means in the end we need to identify the underlying moral principles (or the ‘commonly agreed upon highest values’, if you are of a more atheistic bent) to steer the system in the right direction.
    If this is too philosophical or even sophist to you and you prefer more pragmatic / practical, ask yourself, as I did once: “What is the first priority of the Rule of Law?”
    My answer: “To preserve the Rule of Law, whatever that currently is, in your time and location.”

    Now back to the issues at hand, as I see it US law and the Constitution leave a lot of details not fleshed out, even before going to Orwellian redefinition of words. Especially as you haven’t taken the time to refute just one of BRT’s interpretations by pointing to a written law, I have to assume your argument is mostly based on previous court decisions. Fair enough.
    But I understand BRT’s attempt to interpret the laws as originally written, maybe even to their limits. Chief Justice Roberts style, so to speak.
    Otherwise nobody would be allowed to utter a single word, maybe not even you if you’re not an expert on Constitutional law – and we all would have to subdue to the ‘reign of experts’ by the handful of such scholars in our country.
    And if it comes to legal fights after the election (I actually don’t expect so), BRT’s exercise has some use.

    I cannot vote for Trump again for two reasons: Assange and Soleimani. I still believe Trump will win, even so decisively that already on Wednesday evening the result cannot be seriously contested, so no Supreme Court involvement. But that doesn’t solve any underlying issues, and the US will see hyperinflation within the next 10 years, and maybe a civil war, and with some possibility a break-up of the union (with or without civil war.) Think about the USSR in 1990 for illustration.

    Finally one note on GG and the Intercept:
    I do not see Glenn as a shining beacon of journalism. His coverage of the Brazilian trials and tribulations -as far as I remember-, always had this underlying assumption “after the bad actor [Lula, …] is removed, the next one will be much better, automatically” which to me is unfortunately close to deranged leftist do-gooderism. That’s why I stopped reading TI years ago. And up to a few days ago I wasn’t aware he and Poitras had no bigger influence at all in The Intercept… and I have to chalk that up in large part as their [GG & Poitras] fault, as I read a lot of different sources, as long as they follow reason.
    So all the best for GG’s future, a positive decision has been made by him; but he still has to clean up some of the mess he was part in creating.

  117. @Mikael_

    Dear Mikael…Thank you for providing so much additional thought to my article. Yes, it is speculative, but as you have kindly noted, it was my attempt to factually look at this speculation and if nothing more to educate the reader of the little know machinations of the EC which, due to this naivete, the public takes for granted as a political tool.

    Should you ever care to do so, feel free to contact me directly via my archive of stories. ( My direct e-mail is at the bottom of the “about” page.)

    Although ZH publishes my work, UR is my home, primarily because of my respect for Ron and his ongoing courtesy as my favorite editor, and, as you allude to, that the quality denizens of the UR comments section are often thoughtful, semi-respectful or better, and knowledgeable in their challenges and that… I very much enjoy championing my own work and especially during quality repartee.

    Kind Regards, B.R-T.

    • Replies: @Mikael_
  118. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Mikael_

    I lack free time enough to proofread the following text. I type badly. I apologize for any typing errors I commit.

    The ‘Rule of Law’ is a system. As Jordan B. Peterson explains nicely, “every system is always partially tyrannical, and partly corrupt.”

    Petersen’s assertion lacks perspicacity. Professor Leonard R. Jaffee saw the matter clearly, fully, correctly:

    All systems are pathological. All reflect warped structure. All breed warped structure.

    Leonard R. Jaffee, Empathic Adjustment—An Alternative to Rules, Policies, and Politics, 58 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1161 (1990).

    Professor Jaffee used the term “all systems” to denote all legal rules, all legal systems, all social rules and systems, all political rule and systems, all religious rules and systems, all personal rules and systems…….. He observed that law is a form of religion, as religion is a form of law, and (much more important) religion includes even superego and its rules. He observed that Marx erred by asserting that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Every religions, even every personal moral code, even ever superego is psychopathology.

    Professor Jaffee’s Empathic Adjustment—An Alternative to Rules, Policies, and Politics is available in any University’s law school library (or it is available in University law libraries that are not too “woke” to permit such works). It is available online for a fee, at https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ucinlr58&div=49&id=&page=

    Wilhelm Reich illumined the matter’s grand stage in his MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM, https://archive.org/stream/MassPsychologyOfFascism-WilhelmReich/mass-psychology-reich_djvu.txt

    In that work, and others, Reich presented observations that expose the grim reality that sexual repression engenders all political, legal, religious, and personal structures and their rules (formal or not). “Sexual” means not only “of or pertaining to coitus” or coitus-substitutes (e.g., sodomy, fellatio, or cunnilingus) but also any other physically “pleasurable” experience that involves erotic sensation, including, and very importantly, such experience had by children.

    Reich did not suggest that sodomy or male or female homosexuality were healthy. Rather, he held that the only healthy adult sexuality was penile/vaginal coitus and non-kinky foreplay. He held also that most psychic ills, and all systems, derive from repression of child-sexuality.

    Reich’s term “child-sexuality” does NOT apply to pedophylic rape. The term denotes a child’s free sexual expression experienced alone or with another child or through non-abusive fondling rendered by a loving parent or loving parent-figure.

    I do not see Glenn [Greenwald] as a shining beacon of journalism. His coverage of the Brazilian trials and tribulations -as far as I remember-, always had this underlying assumption “after the bad actor [Lula, …] is removed, the next one will be much better, automatically” which to me is unfortunately close to deranged leftist do-gooderism.

    You misperceive the nature of “journalism,” or mis-define it (if definition is your inclination). And you conflate, wrongly, Greenwald’s journalism and his avowedly or quite apparently personal points of view.

    Greenwald-the-human-individual contemns Bolsonaro and his administration. Greenwald-the-journalist reports much-objectively statements, actions, and other events accurately attributable to Bolsonaro, his regime, or their active supporters. Surely, no one can view political or legal events with perfect objectivity or address, completely, every detail of every such event. Hence, “journalism” must involve choice-of-focus, thence choice of detail or emphasis. But “journalism” endeavors diligently not to choose for corrupt cause.

    Just so, though Greenwald’s politics and socioeconomic views inhabit the left, Greenwald:
    (a) excoriated, with law and fact, James Risen and The Intercept’s editors for asserting, falsely, that Trump has committed treason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsY70_uIXNc
    (b) slammed the mainstream media and the liberal press for its treatment of evidence of the corrupt or illegal Ukraine/China activities of the Bidens See links put in my comment of October 30, 2020 at 7:37 pm GMT (comment # 110)
    (c) defended the Citizens United decision, see, e.g., What the Supreme Court got right, Salon (JANUARY 22, 2010 11:23 PM UTC), https://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

    * [Side Note:
    Actually, the Citizens United decision was correct — inarguably mandated by the First Amendment. See Leonard R. Jaffee, HOW NOT TO OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED, Reader Supported News (24 June 2014), http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/24423-how-not-to-overturn-citizens-united Even the ACLU hailed the Citizens United decision. The ACLU filed a supporting amicus curiae brief in the case. See https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-and-citizens-united AND https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-aclu-amicus-brief
    End Side-Note]

    I cannot vote for Trump again for two reasons: Assange and Soleimani.

    I cringed each I voted for Trump. But each time, the alternative was hugely worse.

    Assange did not commit any crime, did not violate any law of the U.S., and ought not be incarcerated now or extradicted to the U.S. But Assange’s plight began during Obama’s reign, because of Obama’s actions and those of Obama’s administration. Attorney General Barr may be pursuing a maverick course that opposes Trump’s inclinations. The Soleimani assassination was a manifestation of Trump’s quasi-psychopathic and infantile aspects and violated international law.

    But Trump’s truly grave wrongs are:
    (a) his support of Israel
    (b) his treatment of China, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and Cuba
    (c) his including neocons, neoliberals, and Deep State monsters in his administration
    (d) his trading ecological harm for macroeconomic benefit achievable without environment-damage

    Yet Biden, Harris, and the Democrat elite would do the same, and do it much worse (though seeming to treat Iran and China more gently).

    And, Biden/Harris would open the U.S. Borders, plunge the U.S. into “free trade” treaties (which would balloon poverty and deprive U.S. citizens of U.S. judicial protection), expand existing U.S. wars and start new wars, impose killer Covid-19 lockdowns and DNA-altering, pharmaceutically unsafe, but ineffective vaccinations on the whole U.S. population, force everyone to yield to political correctness and the Deep State’s “truth,” make horrifically manifest critical race theory a national religion, censor free speech into oblivion……..

    The United States is evil and corrupt beyond salvation. One is magnificently foolish if one believes one can do better than vote for lesser devils.

    • Replies: @Mikael_
  119. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Mikael_

    Still I lack free time enough to proofread my comment of November 1, 2020 at 9:33 pm GMT (comment # 121). But I cannot resist correcting two typing errors I noticed (too late) just as I clicked on the “publish comment” button to post that same comment.

    The two typing errors mar the final sentence of the paragraph that begins “Professor Jaffee used the term “all systems” to denote all legal rules, all legal systems….” The problem sentence is:

    Every religions, even every personal moral code, even ever superego is psychopathology.

    That sentence ought to be:

    Every religion, even every personal moral code, even every superego is psychopathology.

  120. Mikael_ says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Wilhelm Reich, of all people.
    I first read about him 18 months ago, and felt I’d surely never hear anyone else mention him again. Augusto Del Noce identified his works as an amalgam of Marx and Freud, driven to the extremes (“Orgasmotron.”)
    But even more striking to me, Del Noce in his writings pointed out the “permissive society” as a purported good (along: more permissions => more freedom => more well-being [formerly “vitality”]), and separately but interlocking “limitlessness” [in every leftist policy proposal.]
    It doesn’t take excessive perspicacity to figure out those both are DOA, as the entire (existential) human life is based on forgoing most immediate gratification, for higher values and/or future returns.

    The way you write, it seems Dr. Jaffee -whom I never heard of- is stating “All systems are entirely pathological” as

    every personal moral code […] is psychopathology.

    which obviously then includes non-personal moral codes.
    I don’t get it. How can you then be working in the field of Law?
    Have you taken on a Gnostic viewpoint, such as Post-Modernists, Marxists, Puritans, and many Jews, among others.

    (I don’t care what Greenwald writes about Bolsonaro nowadays. He ignored all signs that the Lula persecution was done by an even more corrupt judiciary [than Lula], and likely driven by foreign powers.)
    Did you purposefully leave Russia out, from your list of Trump’s wrong treatment countries?


    I feel You are truly lost.
    If you ever find a spark of optimism (or in religious terms “hope”) in yourself, read
    August Del Noce “The Crisis of Modernity”

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  121. Mikael_ says:
    @Brett Redmayne-Titley

    Hi Brett –
    Thank you for your kind words.

    I got started contacting you via email, however looking at
    https://www.unz.com/author/brett-redmayne-titley/
    I do not see an About section at the bottom (?)

    Am I looking at the wrong spot, or are my tight browser settings (no cookie storage, ad-block, referer-block) hampering me here?

  122. @Mikael_

    My apologies for not being clear. I was directing you my my personal archive ( I am not a blogger) http://www.watchingromeburn.uk.

    As I’m sure you can appreciate I am always reluctant to provide my email in the public comments section, since …. well, you know.

    With traffic on this article waning however… here you go.

    live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com.

    I just read your most recent reply to Loup-bouc (who has apparently calmed down a bit) and this continues to pique my interest in making contact with you since, that too, was a very thoughtful comment and contained info/ references I was not aware of.

    I look forward to hearing from you. In the meantime here is a link to my follow-up article which may be also a nice addition to Ron’s article of today about media censorship, before he ( hopefully) soon posts it on UR

    https://watchingromeburn.uk/news/the-irony-of-election-censorship-or-coincidentally-corroborating-criminal-conspiracy/

    I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers!! Brett

  123. @Mikael_

    Here you go…. live-on-scene (at) gmx.com

    I look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Brett

  124. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Mikael_

    (1) I am not “Dr. Jaffee” or Professor Jaffee. He was my colleague for some years. Presumptuousness does not flatter you.

    (2) You know nothing of Wilhelm Reich. Augusto Del Noce knows nothing of Reich, but merely repeats a character-assassination commenced by a far left Democrat lunatic-woman who published an article that consisted of nothing but libel. If you do not read Reich’s MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM, and his CHARACTER ANALYSIS, you have no basis of criticizing Reich’s work.

    (3) Your Greenwald-bashing lacks basis — is false. I have shown so [comment # 121]. I shall not trouble myself again.

    (4) Your comment’s remainder is, likewise, dross.

    Example: You write: “Have you taken on a Gnostic viewpoint, such as Post-Modernists, Marxists, Puritans, and many Jews, among others.” [Sic, period not question mark]

    You need to classify me, rather than consider the details of my comments just as what they are. Your psyche parallels the mechanical nonsense of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [“DSM”], which tries to define psychic ills (much erroneously) rather than describe psychic troubles (clinically, and tentatively, because nothing is certain save the transient actualities of particular therapeutic results). In Europe, the DSM is a joke.

    Your classification-technique resembles dropping a fishing line in an alien ocean to see what comes up: Gnostic? Post-Modernist? Marxist? Puritan? Jew? [Labels that are risibly unfitting of me.]

    If you read about 100 of my comments posted under other Unz Review articles — READ them — you might appreciate the absurdity of your haphazard fishing of alien waters.

    (5) You wrote:

    I feel You are truly lost.
    If you ever find a spark of optimism (or in religious terms “hope”)….

    Though I cannot be sure (because your comments are muddy and unbottomed), I expect you think I am “lost” because, you deduce, I agree with Professor Jaffee’s propositions that

    (a) “All systems are pathological. All reflect warped structure. All breed warped structure,” where “all systems” denotes all legal rules, all legal systems, all social rules and systems, all political rules and systems, all religious rules and systems, all personal rules and systems……..
    And
    (b) “Every religion, even every personal moral code, even every superego is psychopathology.”

    If you READ Professor Jaffee’s Empathic Adjustment—An Alternative to Rules, Policies, and Politics [referenced comment # 121], you may apprehend that those observations may liberate a person, and a people, to live in love, good work, empathy, and joy. Read Professor Jaffee’s thesis, or be silent.

    =====
    Adieu.

    • Replies: @Mikael_
  125. Mikael_ says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    If you don’t understand the contrasting in my

    The way you write, it seems Dr. Jaffee is stating […]

    you either have a poor grasp of the English language, or simply chose to take my comments “literally but not seriously” as Peter Thiel coined it so well.

    Excuse me that I found it bad style to litter my comment with question marks, and you are unable to overcome that [for the ‘Gnostic’ sentence.]

    I’m still not seeing the slightest indication in your comment that you personally see any [positive] way out of the situation which even you decry. Unless you show such, the classification of some type of Gnostic thinking by you, stands for the time being.
    The same thing was also holding me off from possibly reading Dr. Jaffee, as I can find endless amounts of nihilism wrapped in utopian theories in other books already.
    Your last paragraph then suddenly hints at the total opposite, but lacks any substance about what Dr. Jaffee found, much less which of such no one else had found before him or at least why he summarized other peoples’ findings in a truly outstanding way.

  126. Loup-Bouc says:

    If you don’t understand the contrasting in my

    The way you write, it seems Dr. Jaffee is stating […]

    you either have a poor grasp of the English language, or simply chose to take my comments “literally but not seriously”….

    As we are responsible for our physical conduct, even inactions, we are responsible for our actual language, its actual, particular actions — its precise, specific diction, grammar, syntax, emphases, punctuation, which, in speech, can include rhythm, loudness, meter, silence, velocity, breath…, even countenance, gesture (hand, head…)…, even eyelight, and discrete context (whether it utters or responds to question, implores a touch, commands restraint, reflects affection, reacts to threat, invokes a “right,” manifests hallucination…).

    Even may, or ought, our language bind us accountable more than can our physical acts.

    Language does not convey meaning (as if thoughts played cargo of a ship of syntax). Language constitutes meaning (as lust whelps hunger and hunger lusts).

    If you say you did not mean what you have written, you had three thoughts, acted three meanings: You wrote one. You thought (“meant”) another. You said a third (that you meant not what you wrote).

    As “red ball” is not “red plus ball,” it is not a conveyance of an idea of a red ballor of a propositionred plus ball.” The phrase “red ballmeans itself, the special idea it is, including what it takes from, and gives, its setting (shape, color, music, milieu), human and else.

    March Hare: “Then you should say what you mean.”
    Alice: “I do…”… “at least—at least I mean what I say—that’s the same thing, you know.”
    Hatter: “Not the same thing a bit ! … You might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same…as ‘I eat what I see’ ! ”
    March Hare: “You might just as well say…that ‘I like what I get’ is the same…as ‘I get what I like’!”

    Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

    Alice: “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’.”
    Humpty Dumpty: “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you’ !”
    Alice: “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’.”
    Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean….”

    Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Brett Redmayne-Titley Comments via RSS