Article Image


Challenging US 2020 Election Fraud

Written by Subject: United States

Challenging US 2020 Election Fraud

by Stephen Lendman ( - Home - Stephen Lendman)

There's no ambiguity about grand theft US Election 2020 for losers Biden/Harris over winner Trump.

It's indisputable, clear evidence overwhelming that's falsely called baseless by dark forces for Biden/Harris and go along establishment media.

On January 6, a joint session of Congress will vote up or down on certifying November's presidential election results.

Will what's virtually always rubber-stamp be otherwise in a few days?

Establishment media mocked a challenge by 11 GOP senators and senators-elect against brazen fraud that will unlawfully elevate Biden/Harris to power on January 20 unless prevented.

The GOP 11 issued a joint statement saying:

Election 2020 "featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities."

"By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes."

"And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread."

They show that "39% of Americans believe the election was rigged." 

"That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%)."

"(D)eep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear." 

"It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of" declared winners of future US presidential elections. 

The Supreme Court failed to resolve the issue, ducking its responsibility. 

"(T)here is long precedent of" congressional members "raising objections to presidential election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017." 

"And, in both 1969 and 2005, a (Dem) senator joined with a (Dem) House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged."

"In 1877, Congress did not ignore…serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race."

"Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission—consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices—to consider and resolve the disputed returns."

"(T)hat precedent" should be followed to resolve disputed Election 2020 results, said the GOP 11.

"Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states." 

"Once completed, individual states would evaluate the commission's findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed."

The GOP 11 "intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not 'regularly given' and 'lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed."

"A fair and credible audit—conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20—would dramatically improve Americans' faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next president."

According to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, "well over 100 House members" intend objecting to Election 2020 results on January 6.

GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert said that 141 congressional members intend objecting to the official Biden/Harris v. Trump results — as of late last week.

According to the Constitution Center, objections to Election 2020 results "will be settled using a process established by the Electoral Count Act of 1887" to resolve the Tilden v. Hayes disputed election.

At that time, five Supreme Court justices decided the result after "House and Senate members voted on party lines."

Addressing the issue, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained the following:

"Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one member each of the Senate and House."

"If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses, and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours."

The House and Senate "then vote separately to accept or reject the objection." 

"They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes." 

"An objection to a state's electoral vote must be approved by (a simple majority of) both houses (up or down on whether) contested (Electoral College) votes (should) be excluded."

According to Law Professor Edward Foley, the 1887 Electoral Count Act isn't a viable longterm solution to a challenged process based on claims of fraud, saying:

"I have spent much of my academic career trying to parse its meaning, and I still find it impenetrable or, at the very least, indeterminate."

Foley cited unclear roles for state governors and other state officials to act as vote "certifiers."

What role the vice president plays in the process also lacks clarity, he added. 

Under federal law, the VP's role is "to preserve order" at the upcoming January 6 joint congressional session.

According to the CRS, "(t)his authority may be interpreted as encompassing the authority to decide questions of order, but the statute is not explicit on this point."

In a 2010 Florida Law analysis of the 1887 Electoral Count Act, Law Professor Stephen A. Siegel called the law "a coherent enactment," adding:

"(C)oherence does not mean that it is a complete response to the problems of Congress's electoral vote counting."

One issue he cited is the problem of "determining the majority of electoral votes needed to pick a winner if some votes were discarded by Congress from the election."

A 270-Electoral College majority is needed for a presidential candidate to win.

If disputed votes of one or more states are discarded for fraud, is a less than 270-vote majority legal under the 1887 law?

In a 2002 law review article titled "Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional, Law Professor Vesan Kasavan called the 1887 law flawed for several reasons.

One he cited is the act's ability to bind a future Congress to procedural rules adopted in 1887 in lieu of alternative ways.

Will disputed Election 2020 be resolved on January 6?

After all that occurred pre-and-post-election, it appears that resolution approaches — pleasing some, angering others.

A Final Comment

Will challenging brazen Election 2020 fraud succeed? 

At best, it's a long shot. Most often, what US dark forces want they get.

It's clear that they want Biden/Harris replacing Trump.

Most likely, that's how things will turn out.

Given Dem control of the House, it appears certain.

VISIT MY WEBSITE: (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

"How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War"

"Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity"