THE 2020 ELECTION CONTROVERSY VS “THE NARRATIVE” At the time, because the court

THE 2020 ELECTION CONTROVERSY VS “THE NARRATIVE”
At the time, because the court would not intervene, Trump and a very large (and still reluctant) percentage of voters believed that the election had been stolen because of the late night data shift in votes in key districts. Upon full investigation it was an effect of ballot harvesting overwhelming the staffs and their ability to input data. So it was rationally suspicious. And it led a significant population to show up on January 6th. Had the court simply ordered an audit everyone would have been happy. We did the audit. It turned out reasonably legit (if you assume ballot harvesting is legitimate) and the case was made.

In other words, Trump voters, and Trump were of the belief that the election had been stolen and that the court needed to stall and force an investigation. This was not an irrational belief given the evidence at the time in particular the involvement of Dominion Voting and their machines. And the political regions in which the behavior was observed. My opinion was that it was statistically impossible for those votes to have changed that late at night. However, it was possible because of the vote harvesting and the boxes of harvested votes that were used for the first time. It was the most suspicious way of doing such things, and conservatives were against vote harvesting specifically because they were aware of the possibility of this tactic being used to skew the results.

To say the case for the legitimacy of the 2020 election was made sufficiently in advance to achieve the legal term ‘settlement’ (public perception of legitimacy) then you are simply in error as demonstrated by the vast evidence of conservative voter behavior in at the time. It’s not an opinion that people weren’t convinced. It’s just your bias and conviction despite the evidence.

The court was afraid to intervene because the court believes the entire government other than the court, and increasingly the military, has lost sufficient legitimacy that they must preserve what they have, while at the same time reversing mid to late 20th lawfare and activism that abused the court, because we have been far too close to our cold civil war turning hot.

Unfortunately, they probably should have taken the risk. But, as expected, the public reaction to those events combined with the past four years caused the radical change in our electors and their strategy, fully reforming the republican party as an evolution of the Tea Party under Trump, as a populist middle and working class majority, that broke the race-marxist strategy of causing racial division.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute

Reply addressees: @RaveCozensHardy