Civil Discourse Now

Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

Bannon disinforms ("lies"): analysis at 8 a.m.---live.

   Disinformation, a/k/a lying, can be effective in a war or a dispute. In World War II, General Eisenhower used the ruse of a General Patton-led attack on the Pas-de-Calais to fool the Germans to believe Allied invasion of Europe would not be at Normandy. The Allies went so far as to create decoy tanks of canvas-over wood frames to throw off Luftwaffe reconnaissance.
   Former “chief strategist” for Trump Steve Bannon has  GOP leaders in Congress seek to nullify the 2016 elections.
   I want to make sure everyone understands—neither Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) nor House Speaker (R-WI) has made any statement. Mr. Bannon had a hissy-fit in the face of a timid “60 Minutes” reporter to vent over Congressional leaders’ refusal to let Bannon have his way.
   In this context, “nullification” means the election would be declared void ab initio. Senator McConnell is many things (including a University of Kentucky basketball fan, itself a cause for concern), and Speaker Ryan’s political philosophy is as clear as Yogi Berra’s explanation of AFLAC insurance to the AFLAC duck, but neither has called for nullification.
   Only one action seeks nullification, and that is a case before the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”).  Bailey et al. v. United States, docket 16-1464, seeks (1) independent investigation of the 2016 election and, (2) if the collusion between the GOP campaign for President and people from Russia affected the election results, an order the election be declared void ab initio. The case is set for conference on September 25, 2017.  
   Mr. Bannon’s misinformation that GOP leaders aim to nullify the election could be a ruse. If Americans draw an incorrect conclusion—that Congress has begun to act responsibly in light of the ever-greater evidence of Russia’s interference in our 2016 elections; interference that has been acknowledged by Trump, Ryan, and Mike Pence and seeks to nullify the 2016 results because a hostile foreign power has control of our political system—people might feel safe..
   Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan have failed to act responsibly in regard to the election. We lack any reason to believe they would reverse course now.
   In the Bailey case, the Court can order an independent investigation. Special Counsel Robert Mueller occupies an office the Executive branch. Only the Attorney General can fire Special Counsel. Since the AG has recused himself from any matters related to the Russia investigation, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein would be the person whom Trump would order to fire Mueller. If Mr. Rosenstein refuses, Trump would fire Mr. Rosenstein and order the person next in line to fire Mr. Mueller. The “Saturday Night Massacre” of Watergate was similar. Ultimately, President Richard Nixon found someone to carry out his orders to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor.  The statutes are different, but the flow-chart of authority is the same.
   A Special Master, such as Petitioners in the Bailey case seek appointed, would act within the Judicial branch and would have the full powers of our Federal courts to obtain any information she or he would believe relevant and necessary. Such an investigation can be quick. The Special Master would deliver to the Court a report of findings. The Court acts from there.
   I am counsel of record for the twelve (12) Petitioners in Bailey.  
   Today we face a constitutional crisis as grave any since the Civil War. Each morning at 8 I will give a video update on the case. You can access it through the website for Revote2017 dot net.
   The effort in Bailey et al v U.S. is not “partisan” for either party.  The effort is to take control of the Oval Office back from a hostile foreign power—Russia.
   If you agree that, at the very least an independent investigation be conducted, please share this blog with three other people, and make the same request of them I just have made of you.  
   Word of this case and the importance the Court hear argument on the case need to be spread.

Views: 77


You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now


  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Mark Small.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

My Great Web page