Connect with us


“This is the End All, Be All Case”: Trump Attorney Sounds the Alarm On Texas Election Case

During an interview on Tuesday evening, Trump lawyer Jordan Sekulow reacted to the election fraud case brought up by Texas against the swing states Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

“I can already report now the Supreme Court has put on the docket the parties: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan,” Sekulow said during an interview on Stinchfield. “When you look at the states that were named they have to now respond by Thursday at 3 PM to this bill of complaint. And they have to respond to very specific items. So the Supreme Court is not just considering what Texas filed today they are now going the next step which is we want a response from the states named… Again I think this is very clear. This is the case we’ve been talking about to reach SCOTUS. This is the outcome determinative case. 62 electoral college votes at stake enough to change the outcome of the election.”

“There are two reliefs sought. One is these legislatures that are all controlled by Republicans can seat new electors because the elections violated the electors clause due process and equal protection,” he continued. “And because of that they can seat new electors… And if it went to the House then Republicans control that 27 to 22 so it would be Republicans choosing the next president if it had to go the House of Representatives… This is the major challenge, the one we were waiting for. It has enough electoral votes at stake to change the outcome… The court is deciding that it wants more briefing and it is great news… This is the end all, be all case.”


On Tuesday morning, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton revealed that the state of Texas filed a massive lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for exploiting “the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.”

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together,” Paxton said in a statement. “Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution.”

“By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” Paxton added. “Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”

The lawsuit states that “certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting.” The lawsuit goes onto say that the election was “less secure” in the Defendant States.

The lawsuit continues:

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.

“Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.”

The lawsuit goes onto say:

Without Defendant States’ combined 72 electoral votes, President Trump presumably has 232 electoral votes, and former Vice President Biden presumably has 234. Thus, Defendant States’ electors will determine the outcome of the election. Alternatively, if Defendant States are unable to certify 37 or more electors, neither candidate will have a majority in the Electoral College, in which case the election would devolve to the U.S. House of Representatives under the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Daily