Loyola University Chicago Law Journal published a document that looks a lot like a manual on how to overthrow the 2020 Presidential election, and it has been published to the Internet so the plan was right out in plain sight, for anyone who knew where it was to read.
The document is titled, ” Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management, written by Edward B. Foley. following the author’s work and recent posts online feel as if we are watching someone playing a live action role-playing games- except this is a game that changes the direction of our lives, impacts our children’s futures and shapes the potential of an entire nation.
“Edward B. Foley of Columbus, Ohio is Contributing columnist focused on election law and administration education: Yale College, BA; Columbia University School of Law, JDEdward B. Foley, a Washington Post contributing columnist, writes on matters relating to election law and administration. Foley holds the Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law at Ohio State University, where he heads the university’s election law program. He also serves as an NBC News election law analyst. In 2016, his book “Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States” was named a finalist for the David J. Langum Sr. Prize in American Legal History; his most recent book, “Presidential Elections and Majority Rule,” explores the conception and evolution of the electoral college, while making the case for reform. Foley clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun at the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987-1988 and Chief Judge Patricia M. Wald of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1986-1987. He has also served as state solicitor in the office of Ohio’s attorney general.”
This article considers the possibility that a major dispute over the outcome of the 2020 presidential election could arise, even without foreign interference or some other extraordinary event, but rather just form the ordinary process of counting ballots. Building upon previous research on the “blue shift” phenomenon, whereby adjustments in vote tallies during the canvassing of returns tends to advantage Democratic candidates, it is easy to imagine a dispute arising if this kind of “blue shift” were consequential in the presidential race. Using examples from both Pennsylvania and Arizona, two states susceptible to significant “blue shifts” in previous elections, the article shows how the dispute could reach Congress, where it potentially might metastasize into a full-fledged constitutional crisis. The most frightening scenario is where the dispute remains unresolved on January 20, 2021, the date for the inauguration of the new presidential term, and the military is uncertain as to who is entitled to receive the nuclear codes as commander-in-chief. In order to avoid this risk, Congress should amend the relevant statute, 3 U.S.C. § 15.”
The Document was brought to light by a poster who referred it to another poster on Twitter:
The Introduction to Foley’s exercise looks very familiar to anyone following current events:
“It is Election Night 2020. This time it is all eyes on Pennsylvania, as whoever wins the Keystone State will win an Electoral College majority. Trump is ahead in the state by 20,000 votes, and he is tweeting “The race is over. Another four years to keep Making America Great Again.”
The Associated Press (AP) and the networks have not yet declared Trump winner. Although 20,000 is a sizable lead, they have learned in recent years that numbers can shift before final, official certification of election results. They are afraid of “calling” the election for Trump, only to find themselves needing to retract the call—as they embarrassingly did twenty years earlier, in 2000. Trump’s Democratic opponent, _
(fill in the blank with whichever candidate you prefer; I will pick Elizabeth Warren since at the moment she is the front-runner according to prediction markets),1 is not conceding, claiming the race still too close to call. Both candidates end the night without going in front of the cameras. In the morning, new numbers show Trump’s lead starting to slip, and by noon it is below 20,000.”
Following a link to a Twitter account from the Washington Post leads to a Twitter account that seems to be mocking supporters of President Trump, and taunting readers to watch events unfold as if they were some sort of game:
As a former Community Organizer I often read the left’s organizing manuals and deconstruct them. This one feels coldly distant, with a strong hint of sadist pleasure the author, Foley, is “predicting” events – when in fact what he is really doing is signaling that he was a part of the plan to overthrow our election, and there is nothing we can do but watch.
The Document is similar to many weaknesses the left has, that being they love to brag about what they are doing to America and what they are doing with the trust that was placed with them, with the power and authority they have. The issues are control and dominance.
Foley’s greatest taunt and sadist games is on the final page of his document:
But what if there is a debate on whether or not the situation exists where “a President shall not have been chosen”? Suppose the House of Representatives thinks the electoral count remains incomplete because of an intractable dispute, and thus in its view the situation calls for an acting president until the dispute is resolved, whereas the outgoing vice president (before noon on January 20) believes that the electoral count has been brought to a conclusion despite the House’s objection, and thus the declared president-elect is entitled to all the powers of the office starting at the beginning of the new term. Does the Constitution, properly interpreted, provide an answer on whether the situation is one involving an acting president, as the House contends, or a president-elect, as the outgoing vice president contends? Related, if there were to exist the situation at noon on January 20 of two simultaneous claims to the status of commander-in-chief—one from previously incumbent president claiming to have been declared re-elected by the outgoing vice president, and the other from the Speaker of the
House claiming to assume the status of acting president given the House’s declaration that there is no president-elect because the electoral count remains disputed and incomplete—do military officials, including those
responsible for the control of nuclear weapons, wishing to obey the lawful commander-in-chief know how to decide who is the lawful commander in-chief?”
And if after that you feel as if you, as an American citizen have gas gaslighted, Congratulations, that means you are mentally independent and healthy.