In a recent ruling, a non-lawyer judge has relied on unconventional evidence, including YouTube clips and news reports, to claim that former President Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection. The ruling has raised concerns about the credibility and legitimacy of the legal process. The judge based her decision on various documents, but many legal experts argue that the evidence would not hold up in a normal court setting.
The judge, who has been accused of having a partisan agenda, allegedly had intentions to take down Trump for years. A video clip from 2021 shows her with secretaries of state from Colorado and Michigan, discussing strategies to curtail Trump's influence. Critics argue that her actions amount to election sabotage, while claiming to fight against it.
This case highlights the significant power held by secretaries of state, a position that often goes unnoticed by the general public. These officials have the authority to eliminate candidates from the ballot, effectively influencing the outcome of elections. The importance of understanding who holds this role and who funds their campaigns cannot be understated.
In the 2020 elections, secretaries of state facilitated a surge in mail-in voting under the pretext of COVID-19. They changed election procedures without going through established channels, such as the courts or Congress. This included extending early voting days and allowing the counting of mail-in votes after the election day.
Critics argue that these changes went unchallenged, and the unchecked power of secretaries of state has now become worrisome. Billionaire George Soros, known for his involvement in political activities, reportedly donated significant amounts of money to support the election campaigns of Democratic secretaries of state. Observers claim that Soros's agenda is beginning to play out, as a growing number of states consider removing Trump from the ballot.
Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court will likely address these issues in the coming year. They warn that the efforts to delegitimize the court, coupled with the recent rulings based on personal interpretations of the law, could have significant consequences for the future of the justice system.
As the focus turns towards the 2024 elections, it remains to be seen if Republicans have taken any steps to address the changing dynamics of voting. Temporary measures implemented in 2020, like expanded mail-in voting, have potentially become permanent fixtures. This has empowered secretaries of state to impede Republican candidates' eligibility.
Some experts argue that if rulings are based solely on personal beliefs and feelings, it opens the door for an alarming scenario where secretaries of state could exclude any candidate they deem unfit. They cite examples such as President Joe Biden's handling of the border crisis, which has raised concerns about his competency, as potential justifications for excluding him from the ballot.
This legal battle raises questions about the fragility of the American democratic system and the potential erosion of trust in institutions like the Supreme Court. The implications of these developments could ultimately transform the nation into something resembling a banana republic, where the rule of law is overshadowed by political agendas.
