The Impeachment Gift To Trump

The House of Representatives voted today to impeach President Trump for the second time in the last two years.

The impeachment took place even though Trump had less than seven days remaining in his Presidency and the Senate has stated it would not even begin a trial on the impeachment charge until after he left  office.

The entire impeachment investigation and inquiry in the House took 8 hours.

Compare that to previous impeachments.

The Democrats really investigated this and thought this through, didn't they?

The reasoning of the Democrats seems to have been done to damage Trump politically and personally so that he can never run for the Presidency again.

It really makes no sense. If Trump is so bad, so dangerous, and so discredited, why would the Democrats be worried about Trump having any chance at running for President again?

Clearly, the Democrats are very afraid about having the next few years compared to the Trump years and not looking very good by comparison. I understand where they are coming from.

However, I believe this fear-based decision has caused them to make a huge error

I think the Democrats have actually provided Trump with a gift of gigantic proportions with the impeachment.

In my mind this could prove to be one of the most disastrous political maneuvers in history.

Why do I say that?

Although Trump still enjoys a lot of support among Republican voters he no longer has the support he once did among this group or with Independents.

A recent poll showed that 91% of Trump voters in 2020 stated they would have still voted for him again even after the events of the last week. However, losing 10% of his voters would translate into a landslide loss in another election right now.

In marketing terms, Trump would be considered to be a damaged brand right now.

The violence at the Capitol on January 6 hurt him substantially.

A big reason for the damage is because the narrative has been spun that there was no case for election fraud. All of it was a a lie that Trump fed to his supporters. There was no evidence. 50 courts rejected the claims, etc. Therefore, there was never a basis to challenge the election results. Trump should have conceded long ago and gone quietly into the night. He incited his supporters to become "terrorists" for no reason other than to foment an insurrection.

The entire argument that the Democrats have against Trump is based on the supposed fact that he incited insurrection through a false narrative.

However, what if it is later proven that it was not a false allegation? What if there was election fraud to such an extent that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were not the rightful winners of the election?

I have argued in these pages before that I could never foresee Trump conceding based on the facts at hand. I fully expected him to continue to investigate the election results even if he was not able to prove that before Inauguration Day. It meant too much to both his future political and business interests.

The reality is that Donald Trump really had no choice but to go "all-in" on this. It is even truer today than it was on January 6. The Democrats and the media are intent on ruining this man and his family in every possible respect. Donald Trump is in a war and being attacked on all sides. It is literally a life or death struggle for Trump and his family.

Before today, Trump's challenge was going to be how he was ever going to get the forum and the public and media attention to prove his case. It would not have been easy. Perhaps he could have filed some civil lawsuits in the swing states and claim that his rights had been violated in some way. However, it would have been a long and arduous fight.

The House impeachment gift changes all of that. 

Trump now gets his "day in court".  If I am defending Trump my defense starts with a detailed review of all the charges of election fraud. As I have written before, I don't know if all the evidence that the Trump team has advanced stands up to scrutiny.  However, this is the type of forum Trump needs to make his case. 

Trump also gets it with all of the American people paying attention. If the election fraud allegations prove true how can any of this be called an insurrection? The insurrection was actually attempted by the other side. Those domestic "terrorists" start looking a little different as well.

The narrative supporting a protest or riot is always important. That is one the reasons that BLM has gotten cover from the media. Yes, it might have been violent in some respects but it was a "righteous" cause. With a righteous cause terrorists become patriots. Look no further than our own American Revolution.

Even if all the allegations do not hold up, some might, and the legitimacy of the Biden/Harris administration is going to be harmed in the process.

The impeachment trial is also going to take precious time away from confirmation hearings on executive appointments, delay their legislative agenda and put more focus on Trump when they should want it on Biden.

The bottom line is that Donald Trump does not assume much risk at all in an impeachment trial. He is backed up against the wall right now anyway and has a tough road back to regaining political legitimacy and in protecting his business empire from further assaults. 

Consider his upsides. In all probability he will be acquitted. He might be vindicated. He might actually be able to convince the American people the election was stolen.

The Democrats are exposing themselves to substantial risks in all of this.

What do they gain? They might legally prevent Trump from running again but he will be 78 years old in 2024 and that might not happen anyway. They are going to strip away his pension and travel allowance. So what? Trump worked for no pay anyway.

In their anger and rage over Donald Trump, the Democrats seem to have lost all sensibility.

They have just handed Donald Trump the greatest gift they could give him right now.

Will the Democrats come to their senses before the Senate trial gets underway? 

If Joe Biden were smart he would come out and ask the Senate to dismiss the impeachment charge for unity and the good of the country.

Is he that smart? Would his party's supporters even permit this if he was? 

In the meantime, those who supported impeachment today may want to reflect on this verse from the Bible.

Whoever digs a pit will fall into it;

    if someone rolls a stone, it will roll back on them.

-Proverbs 26;27 (NIV)

A Wakeup Call

We have reached a point that I never thought I would see in the United States of America.

A nation that was founded on the principles of freedom of speech.

A country that always valued political debate and dissent.

A nation that stood for equal protection under the law.

A country that respected the Constitution.

I think this tweet captures what many are thinking right now.

The outrage over the mayhem at the U.S. Capitol is understandable and appropriate. As I wrote right after the heinous acts, those responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That being said, the same should have applied for all the looting, arson and destruction of property (both private and public) that was perpetrated over the summer across the country in the BLM and Antifa riots.

I wrote in my last blog post about the incredible double standard that exists in this country that has become even more apparent in the last week.

People from both sides of the political spectrum have rightfully decried the violence of last week.

Such outrage was not apparent last summer as cities burned and were held hostage by violent mobs. In fact, members of one party hardly spoke out against it all.

Social media companies have completely shutdown any access President Trump has to use their platforms.

His speech at the Texas border today was not carried by any major media outlets.

The same tactic has been used against scores of other conservative voices. 

It is astounding how many of those I follow on Twitter have been suspended in the last few days.

Twitter's main competitor, Parler, has been effectively put out of business because Amazon, which was providing their server services, refused to continue serving them.

I hear people say that these are private companies and it is their right to choose who to do business with.

However, these same people did not think that it was the right of a Christian baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage.

It is also not acceptable for a hotel or restaurant to refuse to serve someone because of their skin color, religion or sexual orientation. You wouldn't think that civil rights would have to be defined to include your political opinions. That would seem to be the most basic right of all under our Constitution. 

I have heard others say that if Donald Trump or someone else does not like the fact that these social media companies are banning them that they have the right to set up their own social media company.

Really? Perhaps that is a possibility for Trump but what about the Mr. and Mrs. Conservative American who want to share their rightful and respectful opinion on an issue of the day?

Telling people to set up or find another platform would be like telling Rosa Parks to form her own bus company.

You can also argue that Twitter and some of these other social media companies are practically arms of the Democrat party.

In 2020, 98.99% of all federal election donations made by Twitter employees went to Democrats!

In effect, Twitter is now effectively an arm of the federal government considering the Democrats will soon control the Presidency, Senate and House. It is not much different with any of the other Big Media or Tech companies. Free speech? We are almost at the point it has ceased to exist.

We are at the point where almost all dissent and debate is being threatened. We are very, very close to becoming a totalitarian state in the manner in which debate and dissent are being viewed. This could not be more dangerous to our republic.

We also have those who are trying to condemn and cancel any member of Congress that supported the effort to further examine and audit the election results in the disputed states before certifying and accepting the electoral votes. This includes Senators Cruz and Hawley.

For example, thousands of Harvard and Yale law school students and alumni signed a petition urging both Senators to be disbarred.

Never mind that both Senators merely were discharging their duties in a manner that was specifically outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

As much as the media narrative tries to obscure the fact, that is the same thing that President Trump was doing up until January 6.

He was doing exactly what he had a right to do under the Constitution considering the facts and circumstances. I also have no doubt that Joe Biden and the Democrats would have done the same if the roles were reversed and three states and 44,000 votes out of 156 million that were cast were all that separated them from The White House.

What is equally incredible is that the people who are doing this censoring (and censuring) claim that they are standing up for the rule of law and our Constitution without the slightest recognition of how they are running roughshod over it.

For example, take a look at this tweet that came out today from Twitter decrying censorship of social media in Uganda's upcoming election.

When I first saw this I think this was a parody post as it was so lacking in self-awareness.

Internet shutdowns are hugely harmful and violate basic human rights?

I guess President Trump and conservatives are not human and/or have no rights.

The claim is that President Trump incited the mob to attack the Capitol. This is patently false as I explained in my last blog post. You can read the transcript yourself.

However, the timeline that is now coming to light shows that the assault on the Capitol began midway through Trump's speech and people has already had breached the Capitol over an hour before anyone who had attended Trump's entire speech could have arrived.

Source: https://twitter.com/phillyrich1/status/1348629656442990592

In fact, the narrative that has been used here bears some eerie similarities to the explanations that were heard right after the storming of our consulate in Benghazi.

Remember how the original narrative was that the attack was a spontaneous uprising caused by a video that was critical of Islam. We later found out it was a pre-meditated and planned attack in retribution for 9/11.

More and more evidence is showing that the events at the Capitol were pre-meditated and planned and had nothing to do with reaction to Trump's speech. We found out today that the FBI actually had intelligence that an attack was planned. Why then was security not increased? Why was the National Guard not on call? Was the President alerted to the intelligence? If he was not, why not? If he was and did not make adjustments in his rally plans, he rightfully should bear more responsibility. 

The House of Representatives seems intent on passing an Article of Impeachment against President Trump seven days before his term ends for "provoking a terrorist act" against the United States of America and being an "ongoing risk" to the nation.

Under Senate rules and procedures it is doubtful that the Senate could even begin a trial before President Trump leaves office let alone reach a verdict. There is also a substantial constitutional question whether you can even have an impeachment trial after a President leaves office.

It would be hard to create this as a storyline in a novel and have any editor not redline it as too ridiculous to even contemplate.

The country faces a multitude of challenges right now, the Senate has the job of confirming all of the new administration's executive appointments and this is the highest priority right now?

For context, here is another interesting tweet from the Twitter time machine that seems to have been forgotten by Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi and the Democrats were also responsible for blocking a Congressional resolution that would have condemned mob violence.

How about dusting this off and passing that now?

In the meantime, we are about to swear in a Vice President in Kamala Harris who last summer, as cities were being looted and burned, said "protestors should not let up" and tweeted support for a bail fund for looters, arsonists and others who had been arrested in the Minneapolis riots in May.

Bear in mind, this was BEFORE she was selected by the Democrats to be their VP candidate.

Those who are targeted in all of this are not just President Trump and his political supporters in Congress.

The Democrats and media seem to want to come after anyone who supported President Trump---74 million strong.

CNN's National Security Analyst Juliette Kayyem called Trump the leader of a "terrorist organization".

If he is the leader of that organization what does she think of his supporters?

I wonder if she has bothered to compare and contrast the terrorism in evidence at Trump rallies over the last four years to what accompanied those BLM/Antifa protests?

We also have a lawyer at PBS (whose salary was paid by your tax dollars) stating that Republican voters should have their children put in re-education camps. (Thankfully, PBS accepted his resignation after that comment became public).

Finally, we have a long list of media figures such as Don Lemon, and Bill Maher who believe that Trump supporters need to be deprogrammed as they represent a cult.

It really is difficult to tell whether it is 1938, 1984 or 2021.

Then again, it might be 2017 if you ask a number of teachers unions and the Democratic Socialists of America.

They held a National Day of Resistance today.

Resistance to what? I thought their guy won.

The fact is that no one is going to win if this is the country we are living in right now.

Joe Biden is pledging to bring unity?

We are supposed to believe that it is going to get better if it is like this now?

Wake me up when this nightmare is over.

The Double Standard

If anything has been proven over the last four years it is the extent to which a massive double standard exists in this country.

There is one standard applied by the media and the establishment for some people, groups and ideas. There is another standard for others. 

We hear a lot about equal justice, social justice or justice under the law. 

There is little doubt that some people and groups in this country did not get equal justice in the past. There undoubtedly are remaining injustices for some based on race, religion, gender or origin.

However, the fact that injustice exists in one area is not an excuse to apply it in another.

If there is anything that has fed anger among many Americans, and resentment of the media and the establishment over the last four years, it is the manner in which a double standard has been applied to President Trump and his supporters.

There is no excuse for the invasion of the Capitol last week by some of the supporters who attended the Trump rally. The media and others (including me) who have condemned these heinous acts are right on point.

What is also true is that there was no excuse for the months of upheaval and violence we saw for during this past summer in many American cities. However, that mayhem was largely excused by the media and Democrat politicians alike.

This graphic captures the double standard quite nicely.

Source: https://twitter.com/jackmurphylive/status/1348090403128565761

Is a double standard at play?

We have seen the media and the establishment quickly condemn President Trump for "inciting" the violence and attempting to encourage "insurrection" among those at the rally.

How many have looked at Trump's exact comments in his speech?

I saw part of the speech live and read the full transcript of his remarks. You can do the same here.

This is the most direct comment he made about Congress and marching to the Capitol in the 73 minute speech. It is at 18;16 in the speech.

We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period. (emphasis added).

From that point to the end of the speech most of what Trump spoke about was a recitation of what he believed to be were voting irregularities that should have resulted in more scrutiny of the election results and what he believed were grounds for Congress refuse to certify the electoral college votes.

Trump ended with another reference to walking to the Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue in the last two paragraphs of the speech.

So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.

My main criticism of Trump here is that when he used the word "we" he should have gone to the Capitol as well. If he had, he would have had the opportunity to control the situation from getting out of hand. 

He actually could have had the opportunity for a strong leadership moment on the scene by stating "We don't do more than raise our voices in protest. We don't do what was done by many others last summer. We respect property. We respect our government. We respect law enforcement. Use your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble but stand down and stand back from anything more."  

Trump would be in an entirely different place right now if he had done this.

Let's put that aside and compare Trump's alleged incendiary rhetoric with the comments of a number of Democrats over the last few years.

We also saw Kamala Harris make this statement two days after two police officers were shot in Louisville last summer.

“Nothing that we have achieved that has been about progress, in particular around civil rights, has come without a fight, and so I always am going to interpret these protests as an essential component of evolution in our country -  as an essential component or mark of a real democracy."

Is a double standard at play?

I also found it interesting how the media quickly tried to characterize what went on at the Capitol as an attempted "coup".

Source: Politico

Source: The Atlantic

A coup?

If it was it must be the first attempted coup in the history of the world that saw the financial markets of the country involved react like this.

Stock market up since Tuesday.

S&P 500 Index
Source: Yahoo Finance

The dollar up since Tuesday.

US Dollar Index (DXY)
Credit: MarketWatch.com

Compare this "coup" with what appears to have occurred when President Trump took office when it appears that people associated with his campaign were illegally surveilled with FISA warrants.

We still don't know the full extent of this alleged "coup" because the Durham investigation of the origins, predicate and individuals involved in these apparent abuses has been ongoing for over two years. 

Or how about these examples where protestors stormed or occupied Capitol Hill property? I am not suggesting these are equivalents but they seem to have conveniently been lost from memory right now.

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/13/ocasio-cortez-climate-protestors-push-pelosi-962915

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-protests-idUSKBN1JO173

Some 600 protestors were arrested during a clangorous occupation of a U.S. Senate office building in Washington on Thursday, where they decried U.S. President Donald Trump’s “zero- tolerance” stance on illegal immigration.

Is a double standard at play?

We now have the Democrats stating that they want to Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment against Trump to remove him from power or they will bring impeachment charges against President Trump with less than ten days left in his term?

What exactly is the point of this when there are so many other pressing issues facing the country?

Nancy Pelosi states that President Trump is an imminent threat to "our Democracy".

What is the real reason?

Apparently an impeachment would be done solely to prevent Trump from ever again being able to hold federal office if he were convicted.

However, if Trump is as bad and misguided as we are told he is why would the Democrats have to worry about President Trump ever being elected to anything again?

After all, if you look at the media now you would think that Trump is thoroughly discredited and does not have a supporter left in the world. At least, that is the narrative.

Perhaps Democrats have seen the most recent Trump approval rating performed by Rasmussen.

It has Trump at 48% approval after the events of this week that includes all of the bans on Trump's social media accounts.

Is this just a coincidence?

All of this censorship seems to have been done to totally discredit Trump and to marginalize and demoralize anyone who might still approve of Trump.

If that is the case, the Rasmussen poll indicates that it might not be working very well.

48% is actually the highest approval rating Trump has had in this poll since December 18.

Source: Rasmussen Reports

Interestingly, Rasmussen had Trump at a 52% approval rating on election day when he lost the election.

What I found more interesting is that Newsmax is reporting that Trump polled at 51% approval in the last night of polling on Thursday night in the rolling survey. 

Source: Newsmax

If there is one thing I know about the American people is that most have a keen appreciation of what is fair and what is unfair.

Most also appreciate and support the rule of law.

They also can see a double standard when it exists.

If this is a way to bring the country together it seems to be a poor strategy.

Where is Mr. Unity, Joe Biden, in all of this?

Everyone Is To Blame

When you end up with the dark day we had in our nation's Capitol today everyone is quick to cast blame.

Of course, the media and Democrats want to heap all of the blame on President Donald Trump.

Yes, President Trump bears his share of blame.

He clearly underestimated the potential for violence in calling for his supporters to gather in Washington.

Trump supporters have been incredibly orderly and law-abiding in any gathering for over five years.

I have written before in these pages about the safety and dangers of the herd. Here is a portion of what I wrote back in August as left wing protests descended into violence.

Human beings have a "herd instinct" every bit as strong as many animals.

It seems to be hard-wired into our brains.

You often feel better and more secure in conforming and not sticking your head out from the crowd. Being part of the crowd seems like it carries less risk. It seems safer to be a part of the crowd so you can avoid being called out or noticed.

However, the crowd you are following can sometimes be heading in the wrong direction. 

This was demonstrated a few years ago in a research study at the University of Leeds conducted by Professor Jens Krause.

The study showed that it takes a minority of just five percent to influence a crowd's direction - and that the other 95 percent follow without even realizing what is going on.

Professor Krause, with PhD student John Dyer, conducted a series of experiments in which groups of volunteers walked randomly around a large hall. Within the group, a few received instructions regarding where to walk. Participants were not allowed to communicate with one or intentionally influence anyone

The findings in all cases revealed that the informed individuals were followed by the others in the crowd, forming a self-organizing, snake-like structure (or flock of sheep, take your pick). 

"We've all been in situations where we got swept along by a crowd," said Professor Krause. "But what's interesting about this research is that our participants ended up making a consensus decision despite the fact that they weren't allowed to talk or gesture to one another. In most cases the participants didn't realize they were being led by others at all." 

Therefore, it only takes a small number of agitators to influence the crowd to do something none of them would ever consider doing on their own.

It will be interesting to discover what were the driving factors in some of those in the crowd to think that invading the U.S. Capitol was a good idea.

I have a suspicion that some instigators may have been Antifa plants in the crowd. It would not take many of them to lead and for an entire herd to follow

If that was the case, President Trump got played by Antifa and also played right into the hands of the Democrats.

As I wrote yesterday, I thought that President Trump had no realistic chance of getting anything else out of Congress or Vice President Pence in today's proceedings. His only path was through the state legislatures.

It made little sense to focus efforts on Washington with his supporters. Trump should have understood there was a risk that things could spin out of control. He relied too much on past behavior.

A better strategy would have been to put all of the focus on the state capitals. However, that would not be as impressive or garner the media attention to the claims on fraud he needs to put public pressure on the legislators. 

Until today I believed that Trump still had a slim chance of getting several states to do a forensic audit of mail-in ballots that could conceivably lead to the state legislature in those states to decertify.

No one is going to want to touch that issue right now. Trump and the election fraud issue are radioactive right now.

Trump rolled the dice on the DC rally and lost.

In the process, the Capitol incursion did substantial damage to the Trump brand and the MAGA movement. 

It remains to be see what that means in the long term. 

In my view that is where Trump's blame ends on the events of today.

Saying that Trump should have just conceded and walked away is not a fair criticism in light of the massive amounts of alleged irregularities and how close the votes are in the disputed states.

No one can ever convince me that if the roles were reversed that Biden, Harris and the Democrats would have conceded and walked away. 

Let's turn to others who should share the blame.

First and foremost the protestors who crossed the line and invaded the U.S. Capitol. They all should be arrested.

How about the state elections officials who have been so obstructive in allowing any forensic audits of the votes?

How about the state legislatures who allowed election rules for this year to be changed by local officials or the Secretary of State with no oversight?

How about the state legislatures who were not willing to investigate the allegations of fraud when it was brought to their attention?

How about the judicial system which over and over again did not give a fair hearing to the allegations of election fraud or the unconstitutional changes in mail-in ballot rules in various states? The Supreme Court is high on that list because these were issues that in many cases only that Court could decide.

If you were wondering what the cost is of lack of transparency and integrity in our electoral and judicial process you saw it in real time today. This did not have to happen.

How about Democrat officeholders and Joe Biden who sat by and let Antifa and BLM activists loot and burn down cities without a bit of criticism? What example did that provide?

How about Democrat mayors from big cities like Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, Atlanta, New York City and Washington who continually told police to stand down as protestors ravaged their cities?

How about the media who minimized the riots in big cites and kept calling them "mostly peaceful". Compare that to what is being reported right now.

How about the Democrats and the media who have consistently called Trump supporters deplorables, racists, fascists and worse for four years? 

How about the establishment Republicans party who at times has been every bit as hostile of Trump and many of his core supporters as the Democrats are?

How about an FBI and Justice Department who appears more interested in protecting the establishment than the equal application of justice? How long has the Durham investigation been going on? Why did we only find that Hunter Biden has been under investigation for two years after Trump was impeached and a Presidential election?

This country has been at a slow boil for a long time.

Donald Trump did not light the fire.

In fact, Donald Trump would have never been elected but for those who lit the fire.

Yes, Trump did turn the heat up and directed the flame towards those who were responsible for lighting the fire.

He did stir the pot from time to time.

And there is little doubt this made all of them very UNCOMFORTABLE.

To get along in Washington, you are supposed to go along. That was not Donald Trump and he was elected in large part because people were tired of the old games.

Of course, almost everyone in Washington have spent their entire careers playing the get along, go along game. Someone that does not play the game is a THREAT.

You also have those voters who did not like Trump's behavior, style or tone.

Never mind what Trump did. Forget the accomplishments. His policies don't matter. None of those count.  It only matters whether you get along with everyone. Play nice on the playground and make sure everyone likes you.

If we are looking at those to blame let's add those people to the list who value style over substance.

A lot of these people have taken great pleasure looking down their noses at Trump supporters for the last five years. Unwashed, uneducated and supposedly ill-informed about what the United States should be all about. Don't they understand that the nation was never that great to begin with?

At some point, the pot was going to boil over.

I can argue that having Donald Trump in The White House for the last four years actually kept the lid on that boiling pot. Those supporters believed that Trump had their backs and was committed to protecting what has made our country great. Trump kept the lid on.

However, seeing the total lack of transparency in the election and the total lack of courage of anyone to even look into the election allegations blew the lid off.

Blame Donald Trump for what you will.

However, everyone is to blame for where we find ourselves right now.

I know not what lies ahead.

Everyone will also find that out together.

A Most Consequential Time

When are in the middle of one of the most consequential periods in American history.

An election was held today for control of the United States Senate for the next two years.

As I write this at 1030pm on election night this is what those races look like.

It used to be that if you were up 2-3 points with 87% of the vote counted you knew you were pretty much on the way to victory. In the world of mail-in ballots and large, late vote dumps from major urban areas that is no longer the case.

These numbers might look altogether different in the morning when you read this.

Congress will convene tomorrow to consider the electoral votes cast in the 2020 election for President of the United States.

That election has been in question by many since a number of swing states ceased counting votes in the wee hours of election night. When counting resumed a surge in the tally of mail-in ballots reversed the lead President Trump had in a number of states and Joe Biden was ultimately declared the winner in these states and the overall election by the news media.

This is what the votes looked like in six of the swing states that night. Biden ended up winning all of these but North Carolina. Ironically, Trump's margin was closer in North Carolina on election night than any of the other swing states.

Trump trailed in Arizona at this point on election night but ultimately closed the gap to a deficit of 10,457 votes.

His deficit in Georgia was 11,779 votes.

In Wisconsin it was 20,608 votes.

That is 42,844 votes that separates Biden from Trump. That also includes 37 electoral votes.

If those 37 electoral votes were in Trump's column it would result in a 269-269 electoral vote tie.

A week after the election I wrote that in assessing the election results that it was wise to follow the numbers rather than the narrative.

The narrative from that time has been that Biden won. "It was the safest and most secure election in history." "There is no credible evidence of election fraud." "Every court has thrown out challenges to the election." "Trump's claims of election fraud are baseless." "Allegations of fraud are conspiracy-fed lies."

Those that follow BeeLine know that I am a numbers, data and facts guy. 

I go where the facts and data take me. I also like to apply a common sense filter to everything I look at. Does it makes sense despite what the numbers say? Does it pass the smell test?

I have closely followed all of the election results and allegations of election irregularities and fraud.

There is a staggering amount of evidence

There are over 50,000 sworn affidavits alleging some type of election irregularities. There have been numerous statistical analyses questioning whether the vote tallies can be trusted. There have been many questions raised about the reliability of the Dominion voting machines used in a number of the key states. There have been thousands and thousands of ballots questioned because voters might have been dead, were felons, voted from out of state and the like.

My Democrats friends say there is no evidence. What do they think everything I have cited above is?

It is evidence. Of course, it is rebuttable, like all evidence is. In a dispute the other side is expected to come forward and bring their own evidence to support their case and rebut the other side. This is the basis of almost every trial in a court of law. Both sides bring their evidence and a judge or jury weigh both sides and make a decision based on the credibility of the evidence.

The problem in this election is that has not been done.

Every court has essentially refused to view the evidence. All of the cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds. There hasn't been any even-handed look at the evidence.

Almost every election official has refused to respond to the evidence. Even worse, in states like Georgia and Arizona, state officials have actively worked to prevent voting machines and ballots to be turned over for forensic examination and audits.

Yes, vote recounts have been done but if I count $1 million of money and half of it consists of counterfeit bills I will come up with $1 million every time I count.

I cannot determine the actual amount of money I have until I examine actually examine the bills.

The most persuasive expert I have seen thus far on the subject of determining whether election fraud was committed in this election with mail-in ballots is Jovan Hutton Pulitzer.  I saw a video of Pulitzer a month ago where he was being interviewed on how he could quickly do a forensic audit of all the mail-in ballot to determine whether they were fraudulent of not.

Pulitzer is an inventor with numerous patents in the QR code and scanning world. He knows this area backwards and forwards.

This is the original interview I saw of Pulitzer explaining how fraud could be determined with mail ballots. It is about 20 minutes long but you are going to learn more about how many of the outstanding election fraud questions could be answered in a few days.

Pulitzer later testified before the Georgia Senate on the 2020 election which subsequently directed him to do a forensic audit of the Fulton County mail-in ballots. He is still trying to get access to the ballots. He believes that he is being delayed while ballots are shredded.

You can view that testimony here. It is about 45 minutes long.

I have written in these pages for two months that President Trump had a difficult uphill battle in proving fraud.

First, it was going to be extraordinarily difficult to prove election fraud in the short time he had.

Second, it was going to be even more difficult to find legislators or jurists who would have the courage to overturn election results for fear they would be accused of disenfranchising voters (even if those voters were illegally cast).

Most criminal court trials are decided solely on circumstantial evidence. 

Many of you may remember the O.J. Simpson murder trial of 25 years ago. That was probably the strongest circumstantial case you could ever bring as a prosecutor. Most thought that O.J. was guilty. The jury did not agree. Neither did many in the Black community. The same facts heard by two different audiences resulted in two vastly different conclusions.

I see a lot of the same dynamics in play here.

Democrats see absolutely no evidence of any irregularities or fraud to change the result.

Trump supporters see volumes. 

However, the problem here is that there has been no full tribunal convened anywhere to fully weigh the evidence. No court or no state legislature (although there have been some committee hearings) has really examined both sides.

I am open to facts that disprove the allegations. I have yet to see much in the way of credible rebuttal evidence.

The U.S. Constitution specifies that the Electors are to meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice President. It states that they (interestingly, "they" seems to refer to the Electors rather than the state legislature) shall sign and certify, and transmit the votes sealed to the direction of the President of the Senate (the Vice President).

According to the Constitution, The President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and House, is to open all the certificates and the votes shall be counted. If one candidate has a majority of the whole number of electors appointed they shall be elected President.

It is important to remember that January 6 is not mentioned in the Constitution. The only date that matters is January 20.

The January 6 date became important after the passage of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 which was enacted by Congress with the intent of providing more definition to the process. Congress wanted to keep themselves out of the middle of Presidential election contests as had been the case in the election of 1876 between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden which had some eerie similarities to our current situation. January 6 was formally established in that law as the day for the electoral votes to be opened and counted.

Some argue that as the Vice President is the presiding officer over the opening of ballots, the Constitution conveys the power to the VP to accept or reject competing slates of electors. That is a question that legal scholars disagree on. The fact is that early in the nation's history this did occur.

It is clear that the Electoral Act of 1887 was written specifically to limit the power of the VP to a mere oversight capacity with no other powers.

However, it should be noted that the constitutionality of the 1887 Act has never been challenged or litigated. Some argue that Act cannot override the Constitution.

We may hear more about this during the January 6 session. My view is that the Vice President does not have the power to approve or reject a slate of electors.

I also cannot see Vice President Pence doing this.

However, as the Presiding Officer might he make note of the dispute over the competing elector slates and refer the question back to the individual states for one more look before submitting the ballots to Congress?

This seems to be the same objective that Senator Cruz, Hawley and others in the House have in their stated objections to the electors in various states.

I don't see anyone in Congress who is attempting to change the election results. They merely want to provide another ten days for the states that are in dispute to conduct a forensic audit of the ballots along the lines that Mr. Pulitzer has suggested or for more time to investigate the allegations of fraud.

To me, this is a common sense suggestion to provide needed confidence in the election results. Objectively speaking, what is the objection to having a forensic audit done to insure that the election results can be trusted?

It would seem the only ones who could honestly object would be those 1) who participated in any fraud that might be uncovered or 2) those who are afraid that if real fraud is revealed they will have to take a moral stand and not ignore it like it never happened.

We will see what happens tomorrow but it is clear that there are not many that have the courage to even take the first step that could put them in a position to potentially have to take that moral stand.

Majorities in both houses of Congress almost certainly will vote against any effort to seek forensic audits in the disputed states unless President Trump has been sitting on some explosive new evidence that is incontrovertible and conclusive.

The Electoral Act of 1887 establishes a procedure for any challenges to disputed electors to go to a 2 hour debate in each chamber after which each House votes on which slate to accept. If the House and Senate disagree the certified slate wins. 

Each challenge is supposed to get 2 hours of debate but I would not be surprised to see Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell cut off debate after one challenge (likely Arizona). I doubt that they want to see six 2 hour debates on each of the contested states. The Trump supporters better be able to get all of their evidence out on all states with that first challenge. I doubt they will get any more chances.

This will likely lead to a majority of electoral votes being cast tomorrow for Joe Biden as President-elect and Kamala Harris as Vice President-elect.

Will it end there?

It may but I doubt it.

The Trump team knows that the only true Constitutional date is January 20th at noon for the new President to be sworn in.

The 20th amendment to the Constitution specifies what happens between the point in time when the electors have been chosen and the swearing in date.

For example, if Biden were to die before January 20, Kamala Harris as Vice President-elect would be sworn is as President on Inauguration Day.

The 20th amendment also states that in the case where the President-elect "shall have failed to qualify" that the Vice President-elect shall act as President "until a President shall have qualified". 

This is interesting language. What is meant by a President-elect who has failed to quality? Could that mean that after the electors votes have been accepted by Congress that it is found that the vote was fraudulent? Could it mean that state legislatures de-certified their electors after the electoral college vote but before January 20?

Note that in this case the Vice President-elect does not become President. The VP merely becomes acting President until "a President shall have qualified". I interpret this to mean that the state legislatures would have to resubmit new electors for President.

The 20th amendment also refers to a situation where both the President-elect and Vice President-elect have not qualified. In this case Congress is given the power to provide by law who shall act as President or a manner to select an acting President "until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

Based on this Constitutional language I would argue that President Trump will not let what happens tomorrow deter him. The Trump team will undoubtedly continue to pursue actions in the state legislatures to decertify the electoral vote. That could result in Biden and Harris being considered to have "failed to qualify" to be inaugurated.

As I have written before, should this last gasp effort fail, I do not expect President Trump to concede and expect that he will continue to try to prove the election results were illegitimate even if Joe Biden takes office on January 20.

Trump has the money and the motivation to continue on a quest to prove that the 2020 election results were illegitimate. His entire future business and political legitimacy depends on it. He will not quietly slink away.

What happens if, given enough time, Trump is able to definitively prove that a year or two down the road?

That is when the real constitutional crisis will be upon us.

The only redress at that point is an impeachment of Biden and Harris. However, that will not put Donald Trump back in The White House. The established order of succession would mean the Speaker of the House would be elevated to the Presidency.

If faced with those circumstances, how many members of Congress do you trust to make the right moral choice at that point?

That is why it is so important that the state legislators and Congress get this right today. 

They may think they are being placed in a tough spot now. Most clearly want this to go away.

They might find themselves in a much worse spot in the future.

That is why this is a most consequential time. 

Any votes or actions tomorrow will be most consequential for our country's future.

They also could prove to be most consequential for those who cast those votes.

People who are not on the right side of history do not fare well in the long term.

I trust we will know what side that is in time. It is not easy making consequential decisions in the middle of a storm.

That is why I see little downside on giving the disputed states another ten days to insure they have done the forensic audit and fully investigated the allegations of irregularities.

I don't see how history could ever judge someone that took an extra step like that harshly in these circumstances.

Those that refuse to take that step, if it is later shown to have been shortsighted, will not be so fortunate.

Covid +1

It was exactly one year ago that news was first coming out of China that a SARS like virus was spreading in Wuhan.

It has been quite a year since then.

We can all attest to it. We have lived it.

However, Wuhan and China, despite being the original epicenter of the pandemic, have fared much better than almost anywhere else. This is without a vaccine or other high tech therapeutic treatments that were developed in the United States such as Remdesivir and monoclonal antibody treatments.

For example, compare the scenes in Wuhan (a city larger than New York City) with Times Square on New Year's Eve.

Wuhan, China on New Year's Eve

You can view a video from Wuhan here.

Times Square in New York City on New Year's Eve at 11pm

Is it just a coincidence that the virus emanated from China and yet a good part of the rest of the world is living under this scourge while China is getting richer and richer?

Did the virus come from bats in a wet market or are we dealing with something else?

https://nypost.com/2021/01/02/growing-body-of-evidence-shows-covid-19-leaked-from-chinese-lab-us-official/

It is also interesting to look at the number of confirmed cases and deaths that have come from Asia and Africa compared to Europe, North America and South America.

Confirmed Cases per Million

Deaths per Million

What explains this? Is there a genetic component here? Is it culture? Diet? Underlying health effects? The extensive use of HCQ to prevent and treat malaria in Asia and Africa? Testing? Is it just differences in reporting?

How could a virus that is deemed so contagious that we are told we have to lockdown our lives not have the same affect on humans who live in some of the densest population centers on earth?

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/duplicates/9tvsa0/population_density_of_the_world/

We seem to be missing something.

In many places it seems that lockdowns actually result in increasing cases.

Take a look at California which currently has no indoor or outdoor dining, stores are limited to 20% of capacity and all major gathering venues (zoos, museums, theme parks, sports) are totally closed. The Rose Bowl game actually had to be moved to Texas. The San Francisco 49ers played today's home game in Glendale, Arizona.

Here is the Google Mobility Index for Los Angeles County. The baseline used here is the median value for the period January 3- February 6, 2020.

Source: https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-12-29_US_California_Mobility_Report_en.pdf

Here it is for San Francisco County.

Source: https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-12-29_US_California_Mobility_Report_en.pdf

There is massive testing and contact tracing going on in California and there is as much mask usage there as anywhere in the world.

The decline in cases in the last week of 2020 appears primarily to have been due to reduced testing during the holidays.

Once upon a time we would have looked at this data and concluded that there must be a flaw in our approach. Something we are doing (lockdown, masks etc) must not be working. That is no longer the case. We now just double down and blame people for not doing what they are told even when they are doing it.

If you look at a graphic of all states together you see that most states peaked in mid-November and started declining. This is irrespective of lockdowns or mask mandates.

Source: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases-50-states

For example, look at the Upper Midwest states which were heavily impacted with Covid cases in the Fall.

All rose and fell together even with vastly different public heath policies (South Dakota very few restrictions, Minnesota with a great deal more). Cases spiked and cases declined at the same time and with essentially the same rhythm.

Look at Minnesota and Iowa. In October, Wallet Hub ranked Iowa as the #5 on a list of having the least restrictive Covid restrictions in place. Minnesota was #32. South Dakota was #1, North Dakota #9.

A friend and BeeLine reader recently sent me a blog post from Dr. Malcom Kendrick on Covid entitled "What is left to say". Kendrick is a Scottish physician and has a lot of great insights on Covid. It is well worth the read.

Kendrick writes that we are almost one year into Covid and most of us are caught between two warring camps.

The ‘COVID19 is the most terrible infection ever, and we must do everything in our power to stop it, whatever the cost’ banner.

Or the ‘What on earth are we doing? This is no worse than a bad flu, and we are destroying the world economy, stripping away basic human rights and killing more people than we are saving’ banner.

Between these two, main, completely incompatible positions, lies the truth. It is in pretty poor shape. It has been crushed, and bent out of shape, smashed, and left as a broken heap in the corner. I search where I can, to find the fragments, in an attempt to bring together a picture that makes some kind of sense.

We don't know whether the PCR tests to diagnose Covid are accurate and helpful or are actually falsely hyping the threat.

Did someone die of Covid or merely with Covid? Are we overestimating or underestimating deaths from the disease? 

At Covid+1 it seems we should know more.

What does Dr. Kendrick know right now?

So, what do I know? I know that COVID19 exists – or I am as certain of this as I can be. Was it a natural mutation from a bat, or was it created in a laboratory? Well, I suppose it doesn’t really matter. It’s here, and there is no chance that any Government, anywhere, would ever admit responsibility for creating the damned thing. So, we will never know. If you asked me to bet, I would say it was created in a lab, then escaped by accident.

Is it deadlier than influenza? Well, it is certainly deadlier than some strains of influenza. Indeed, most strains. However, Spanish flu was estimated to have killed fifty million, when the world’s population was about a fifth of what it is now. So, COVID19 is definitely less deadly than that one. About as deadly as the influenzas of 1957 and 1967. Probably.

Will it mutate into something worse? Who knows.

Will the current vaccines work on mutated strains? Who knows.

Can it be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers? Who knows. 

How effective are the current vaccines going to be? Who knows.

That is a lot of "who knows" one year into this.

And North America and Europe are betting big time that vaccines are the only way forward. This is the case even when we really don't know how effective they will be or the longer term side effects that the new messenger RNA vaccines may have on the people who take them.

You undoubtedly have seen the headlines that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are said to be 95% effective.

However, do you know what that means?

Let's put it in context thanks to an excellent summary of the vaccine trial data by Dr. Zoe Harcomb, PhD  that I found interesting.

Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things.

1. Reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and have to be hospitalized

2. Prevent infection and interrupt disease transmission

You might be surprised that neither of these are the stated objectives in any of the Covid vaccines.

They merely were focused on the detection of a positive test and at least one symptom of Covid and the comparison between those who took the vaccine and those who took the placebo.

In the Pfizer test there were about 18,000 in each arm of the testing (vaccine and placebo). Very few of those in the trials were over the age of 70 or had severe comorbidities.

Among the 18,000 who got the vaccine, 8 later tested positive for Covid and had at least one symptom. Among the placebo group, 162 tested positive at some point. The vaccine efficacy was stated to be 95% because 8/162=.05. This is where the 95% efficacy numbers came from.

However, Dr. Harcomb observes there is another way to look at this.

The tiny number of people who tested positive is striking. The revised Pfizer numbers could also be reported as 99.9% of people in the vaccine group and 99.1% of people in the placebo group didn’t test positive.

You wonder how is it that millions of people in Wuhan were celebrating on New Year's Eve without one vaccination among any of them?

Does that have something to do with a natural human immune system?

Look at the Pfizer test results again. Over 36,000 people were in the vaccine trials. Only 170 tested positive at some point in both of the groups. 99.5% of the overall test group never tested positive.

Based on the data, 154 possible infections were avoided but it took 18,000 vaccines to accomplish that compared to the placebo.

The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is an important measure of the value of an intervention. The NNT is the number of patients, on average, who would need to receive experimental treatment (instead of control treatment) for one additional patient to not have the study outcome.

It is a simple way to contextualize the risk/benefit relationship of a treatment alternative. The ideal NNT would be 1 meaning that a single intervention would produce a corresponding positive health outcome. As the NNT increases it is possible that the risk of the intervention might outweigh the benefits. 

The NNT for the Pfizer vaccine is 119 based on the test data. That is a very high number of necessary treatment interventions to avoid one case. Perhaps we will find that it is lower than that as we gain more experience with it. However, we might also find that it carries more risks (or benefits) than the original testing showed.

Here are some NNT's for some other common treatments for comparison.

Wearing compression stockings post-surgery to avoid a serious blood clot is a 7 (for every seven who wear the stockings one deep vein thrombosis will be avoided)

Antibiotics to cure conjunctivitis within 10 days is a 12 (11 would get better on their own without needed)

Taking a statin to prevent a heart attack within five years is 60.

If all 119 vaccinations required to avoid that one Covid positive test are completely harmless the benefit clearly outweighs the risk. However, if there are significant side effects the calculus might change.

The risk profile might also depend on the individual. The benefit might outweigh any risk for an 80 year old in a nursing home or an ICU nurse who treats Covid patients every day.

However, it might be different for a 30 year old stay-at-home mom, a 40 year old male triathlete or a 16-year old high school student.

It is important to know your situation and the real facts rather than rely on "public service" announcements telling you to get vaccinated as soon as you are able.

Dr. Harcomb concludes this way.

If you stopped 100 intelligent people in the street and asked them what 90% vaccine efficacy means, they will likely say that it means 90% of people vaccinated won’t get the virus. The fact is that 99% of people who were given the placebo didn’t get the virus. The intelligent person in the street won’t realise that it means approximately 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid 1 case. They might think those vaccinated won’t have a bad outcome and can no longer transmit the virus. They probably won’t realise that the trials were not even designed to test these key issues. 

What has Dr. Kendrick learned and where does he see this going now that we are at Covid +1?

So, again, what have I learned about COVID19? I learned that all Governments are floundering about, all claiming to have exerted some sort of control over this disease and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. In truth, they have achieved nothing. As restrictions and lockdowns have become more severe, in many cases the number of infections has simply risen and risen, completely unaffected by anything that has been done.

The official solution is, of course, more restrictions. ‘We just haven’t restricted people enough!’ Sigh. When something doesn’t work, the answer is not to keep doing it with even greater fervour. The real answer is to stop doing it and try something else instead. 

If I were to recommend actions. I would recommend that we stop testing – unless someone is admitted to hospital and is seriously ill. Mass testing is simply causing mass panic and achieves absolutely nothing. At great cost. We should also just get on with our lives as before. We should just vaccinate those at greatest risk of dying, the elderly and vulnerable, and put this rather embarrassing episode of mad banner waving behind us.

Hopefully, in time, we will learn something. Which is that we should not, ever, run about panicking, following the madly waved banners… ever again. However, I suspect that we will. This pandemic is going to be a model for all mass panicking stupidity in the future. Because to do otherwise, would be to admit that we made a pig’s ear of it this time. Far too many powerful reputations at stake to allow that.

I would hope we are in a better place this year than we were last year.

Yes, ignorance is bliss and there was a lot of ignorance to make us blissful last year.

 I would like to think we are in a better place now that we are at Covid+1.

Then again, as Dr. Kendrick correctly states....who knows?