The November 3 Election Is a Mess. What Should Be Done?

December 24, 2020 Updated: December 24, 2020

Commentary

There do seem to be two contested Americas.

One America, which has an iron grip on the establishment media narrative is acting as if, in the infamous words of Chris Krebs, “the election was the most secure in American history.” This statement being a non-sequitur and said shortly before the U.S. Government was confronted with a “grave risk” from the Solar Winds issue, potentially the biggest cyber-attack in years. Having lived intimately through the chaos of the Sony Breach in late 2014, the Communist Chinese rampage through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and other key events of cyber history going back to Agent BTZ and the Cyber Riot in Estonia, I’m quite familiar with what really goes on behind the curtain inside the U.S. Government in such complex events. It’s far from the way Mr. Krebs chose to describe the situation.

But then again, Mr. Kreb’s Sector Coordinating Council for elections significantly prepared his comments. One of the main contributors to this text was a company called Dominion. No surprise on the choice of words with that contributor behind Mr. Kreb’s comments.

The other America is very concerned with ensuring the absolute integrity of the American election process. This group is essentially being shut out of the establishment media, ignored by the sworn County and State Officials who actually run our elections, and are being largely discounted by the American judicial system at all levels. To this second group, the meaning and underlying mechanics and process of the 12th Amendment are foundational to our country. To this group, the Constitution provides guidance, but the American people own this process and have a right to ensure it is being correctly implemented.

Evidence of Fraud Not Being Shared

By my count, at least 12 groups and significant personalities have rapidly formed a loose coalition to fight for election integrity. Groups such as EveryLegalVote.com, led by Kevin Freeman (host of Economic War Room with Kevin Freeman), have documented over 4,500 examples of fraud.

The courts want to see this evidence of fraud. This supporting evidence is largely held by county and state election officials, who for the most part have not been transparent or cooperative in sharing of this information that is critical to substantiate the lawful election process or by providing a modicum of seriousness in re-looking at what happened. It is their sworn duty to share, not conceal.

Maricopa County in Arizona has voted not to comply with a subpoena to share election data. In an earlier attempt at a recount in Georgia, Lin Wood, charged that the recount was meaningless since the officials were directed to simply come up with the same numbers already in dispute. If true, that doesn’t seem to fit any definition of a transparent recount. There seems to be a lineage of significant, recent, election malfeasance in Georgia, including destruction of evidence. This should be of concern to anyone interested in election integrity.

Courts Need to Insert Themselves

Phil Kline, leading the Amistad Project, is doing significant work on the post-election legal challenges, especially in Wisconsin. The Amistad Project identified over 150,000 unlawful votes in Wisconsin. Amistad identified over 96,000 votes in the “indefinitely confined” category—meaning these voters were said not to be able to travel to the polls. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed the votes in the “indefinitely confined” category were not valid, but it was not clear how this ruling would be applied to the voter count in the November 3, 2020 electionAnother Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling rejected a request to overturn the Wisconsin results stating the “challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots is meritless on its face” and the challenge was late.

Well, to any reasonable person, the Wisconsin Supreme Court appears to be declaring that some votes were unlawful but is choosing to be ambiguous in one ruling as to applicability and simultaneously saying the challenge was late, effectively a “ho hum,” who cares? answer. The obfuscation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court seems to express an abstract commentary that serves little purpose. Why even have a Wisconsin Supreme Court?

The rapidly formulated and presented Texas challenge to the outcome in four states with alleged fraud was quickly swatted down by the Supreme Court due to “lack of standing.” If my vote in a national election is nullified by fraud in another state, I have no standing? I’m not a lawyer, but equal protection under the law, I think applies to all and is pretty important.

The rapid beat down of the Texas filing expressed a resounding un-interest in actual application of the law and far greater interest in trying to not exacerbate civil unrest and violence from Communist agitators who might not like the Supreme Court’s position. Why even have a Supreme Court?

Courts have a constitutional duty to compel and if necessary, use attorney generals and law enforcement to require the executive branches to fully share election information and be fully transparent in election challenges. Courts then should show decisive interest in ensuring comprehensive and fair review based upon credible challenges and not dismiss cases based on unrealistically short timelines. Material evidence should immediately incur greater interest in further investigation and not be discounted as “not enough.” The seminal role of courts is for plaintiffs to seek relief and gain information.

Inaugural Proceedings Should Be Paused

If one is interested in truth, I would suggest as of right now, the Nov. 3, 2020 election lacks credibility. The evidence of fraud has been largely sequestered and potentially even destroyed by sworn election officials. The courts have been ineffective, uninterested, and focused on public opinion not law.

One part of the U.S. voting population wants to pretend there is an Office of the President Elect (and even make a poll on the success of this mythical office).

The other part of the U.S. voting population asks reasonable questions and are ignored, silenced, and accused of threatening national security. This is not right and not how our country should be run. Because of this divisive dysfunction, we need to declare a technical defect on this election.

I chuckle at the national security threat comment. I met with many, trusted, international partners while I was in Government. To a country, they trended toward the authentic, passionate leadership of Trump and contempt for the ambiguous, lead from the rear, over-sophisticated nuance of the Obama era.

Finalizing the Election 2020 Results

Following Constitutional processes, because of the unprecedented dysfunction of this election, all proceedings on inauguration should be put on pause. A complete and fully transparent audit of the vote in the six states in question, including signature match, election machine audit log forensics, full access to all ballots, and the new optical scan ability to rapidly review and identify lawful and unlawful ballots must be implemented on a large scale.

And if such doubt continues on the results, immediately re-run the election in the six contested states with full Taiwan-like transparency in the process, without the tainted election machines and their mischievous fractional apportionment.

How can anyone assume the Presidency without clearing up such doubt, fear, and anger? Any candidate with Solomonic wisdom would agree to this before declaring finality to this election. Congressman-elect Pete Sessions, a victim of previous election fraud put it this way, “Our constitutional republic is too important to rush to failure and the potential collapse of our country, we have to get the November 2020 election right before we move on.”

Col. (Ret.) John Mills is a national security professional with service in five eras: Cold War, Peace Dividend, War on Terror, World in Chaos, and now, Great Power Competition. He is the former director of cybersecurity policy, strategy, and international affairs at the Department of Defense. @ColonelRETJOHN

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.