DNI Ratcliffe Attends Army-Navy Game With Trump As Report On Foreign Influence In U.S. Elections Pending

Not Making Headlines: DNI Ratcliffe Attends Army-Navy Football Game with President Trump – More than a Coincidence?

Joe Hoft 

What went unnoticed on Saturday is that Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe joined President Trump today at the Army – Navy football game.

Former Representative and now current Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, tweeted out today that he joined the President at the Army – Navy football game:

Ratcliffe then changed the profile picture on his Twitter account to a picture of Ratcliffe standing in front of Marine One.

The Army – Navy game is an important annual event in the US annually but perhaps this year there is added meaning. 

We have reported that per an Executive Order of President Trump’s in 2018, DNI Ratcliff is required to provide a report to him 45 days after the election.  December 18 is that date.

As the 2020 Election Continues In the Courts, The Deadline for President Trump’s Executive Order Regarding Foreign Intervention in US Elections Silently Approaches 

Any person or foreign entity that interfered in the 2020 election is on notice. The 2020 Election was full of fraud and deceit.  Numerous actions have been uncovered by private citizens related to the election.  Soon the Director of National Intelligence (DNI John Ratcliffe) is required to release his report which is to cover an … Continue reading

Wonder what might have been discussed during their time together?

Don't Need SCOTUS to Win

James Arlandson

The Texas suit, later joined by other states, against Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, was a nice try, but it was always a long shot.  Of course SCOTUS would be reluctant to grab so much power by ordering state legislatures to seat the right electors.  Why?  Because the power is already in the hands of the legislatures to do this. 

Though we are non-lawyers, let's read these laws together, interpreting them minimally and plainly (something lawyers seem incapable of doing).  The first federal law for our purposes, titled "Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors," says:

So this provision, if I understand it correctly, says that states may appoint electors after a controversy ("controversy or contest").  Now, what happens when fraud and illegalities are so egregious that they help one candidate exclusively and harm only one candidate in such a way that it is unclear which electors shall be appointed?  That definitely qualifies to become a "controversy or contest."  The provision opens the door to each state legislature having the right to determine how the state can appoint electors ("appointment of electors" and "ascertainment of electors").  (This is already clear in the Twelfth Amendment, but here this provision gives more clarity after a controversy.)  Bottom line: The electors for Biden, the "fake winner," can be set aside if that is what each individual state law allows. 

What does each state law say?  It's up to them to tell us, because researching each state's law is too burdensome for average citizens.  But it is safe to assume that the states have "plenary power" to appoint the electors of their choosing, particularly when the Constitution actually says the state legislatures determine things.  The Electors Clause — Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution — provides that "[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." (Hat tip.)

However, what about the "six days" in the election law provision?  The next federal law, in a section titled "failure to make a choice before prescribed day," says:

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct. 

The states can determine when they appoint the electors "on a subsequent day" (not the next day).  The phrase "In such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct" gives the states much leeway to select the right electors, which agrees with the Electors Clause, cited above.  And if the controversy in selecting electors, caused by fraud and illegalities, persists past Dec. 14, then the states can ignore the date and follow their need to further investigate fraud and illegalities. 

More...