Trump Has Chance To Be America’s Last President
Published in Vzglyad
(Russia) on 11 December 2020
by Dmitry Bavyrin (link to original)
Editor’s note: While the perspective of the author remains largely relevant, much of the information in this article has been superseded or rendered moot by a Dec. 11 Supreme Court decision that rejected a lawsuit by the state of Texas challenging the vote in four swing states that Donald Trump lost in the 2020 presidential election.
Just five days before U.S. electors were set to cast their votes for Joe Biden, Republicans unveiled their main weapon, a previously unannounced lawsuit by Texas filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could grant Donald Trump a victory, but the justices must first choose quickly between the lesser of two evils: Biden as president or complete devastation.*
A Christian may not believe prophets or psychics; an atheist should not. However, those who hate the United States as an entity involved in international politics will most likely want to believe in Edgar Cayce's prediction. Cayce, who died in 1945, was a clairvoyant from Kentucky who continues have a large following to this day.
It is believed that he predicted the Great Depression and both world wars. Cayce made his predictions in a dreamlike state, floating between sleep and consciousness. Another of Cayce's predictions posited that the 44th president of the U.S. would be its last.
Barack Obama was the 44th president of the U.S. After his election, some especially impressionable Americans moved into bunkers to await the apocalypse — such was the effect of Cayce's prediction, and racism, as well. However, this prediction was later reevaluated and Trump was proclaimed the 44th (and last) president of the United States. The reasoning behind this change was the belief that Grover Cleveland's two presidential terms (he was the 22nd and 24th president) should be counted as one, with no regard for the break in between.
Today the now deceased Cayce has the chance to be proven right. No, not because Trump will start a nuclear war before Biden's inauguration, but because the United States will cease to exist as a country. There is now hope that Trump might steal victory back from Biden with the help of Republican Party discipline and the U.S. judicial system.
If Trump is really lucky, he will be declared the winner of the presidential election despite the fact that he received 7 million fewer popular votes than Biden and lost the electoral vote. He will become a usurper president who is hated by the American media, Wall Street, the intelligentsia, the bureaucracy, the Democratic Party (which now controls the House of Representatives) and whole armies of protesters (from the Black Lives Matter movement to antifa).
If Trump is elected it could cause an enormous conflict, including possible civil war, rebellion, revolution, secession or just a simple change in the form of government, which could give the presidency to the secretary of state.
But most likely this will not happen, because all psychics are frauds. Nevertheless, the Republican Party has suddenly unveiled its trump card (pun intended!) and it has become obvious that their bid to retain control of the presidency is much more serious than it seemed even as little as a week ago.
At that time, the legal battle in the swing states was basically over, and not in favor of Trump. In addition, Trump's right-hand man, personal lawyer and former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, tested positive for COVID-19 (not a laughing matter for the 76-year-old).
Now the general opinion is that these legal squabbles have been a distraction while the Trump team was building truly impressive weapon against Biden. This weapon was the Texas lawsuit against Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the states where Trump is certain he was swindled out of a victory. With great speed, 17 additional Republican states quickly joined the lawsuit — this united front was probably also organized beforehand — after all of the hits and misses of Trump's lawsuits in the lower courts had been taken into account.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz will present this case before the Supreme Court. Cruz has experience working for one of the Supreme Court justices, and has a formidable reputation as one of the best lawyers in Congress with a very high IQ. In fact, it was Cruz who drafted the sanctions bill which paused the construction of Nord Stream II.
Cruz lost to Trump during the 2016 primaries, but supported him in the presidential election (albeit with a heavy heart — his words). Later on, when it became obvious that the new president had a loyal voter base and the Democrats were going crazy, Cruz became a steadfast Trump supporter. After all, nowadays, it is incredibly profitable for a Republican to be a Trump supporter, and Cruz (as previously mentioned) is a smart man.
Part of the important historic process taking place this December will rely on Cruz’s intellect, while the rest depends on the Supreme Court. This institution is indeed all powerful; its justices are controlled by no one and nothing, and they can determine the fate of the United States for decades to come. Supreme Court decisions can be overturned only by constitutional amendment.** And yet, the main function of the Supreme Court seems quite humble. It is the final court of appeal, where the constitutionality of various issues is determined. Evidence is neither presented to nor considered by the court, and the decision of the justices is final.**
But, in those rare cases where states sue each other (like the current situation, in which Texas is bringing four states to court) the process appears to be more like a traditional court hearing, with a defendant and a plaintiff, and the submission of evidence. A new game has begun, and if it is won, then Trump may try to stay in the White House for four more years.
At least on paper, the majority (six of nine) of the Supreme Court justices are conservative. In fact, Trump appointed three of these six justices himself. But Democrats are convinced that he did not have the right to make the appointments, and they may give us cause to remember it.
As a general rule, conservatives usually go against their party politics. For example, it was the Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vote (no relation to John F. Kennedy) which legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S. Kennedy was originally a traditionally minded, diehard Republican when he was nominated by Ronald Reagan. Similarly, it was one of Trump's appointees, Neil Gorsuch, who voted to destroy half of Oklahoma.*** No doubt the current U.S. president would like to impeach him for this decision, but does not have the right to do so.
Justices have no loyalty to parties or politics. They are appointed for life and make decisions based on their own understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
Texas will try to prove, with the support of at least 17 states, that four swing states broke constitutional law when they introduced new rules concerning mail-in ballots (a logical measure in the era of COVID-19, but very easy to falsify).**** If Texas succeeds in gaining the support of at least five justices, Biden — along with many others — could have a heart attack.*
Whatever options the Supreme Court may offer if the majority rules in favor in Trump could present either a colossal political crisis and interparty slaughter, or a second term of the "orange monster" with plenty of strikes, guerrilla warfare, division and other indications that the current American form of government is dead.
Such a crisis will occur if the Supreme Court determines that a recount of the ballots in the swing states is needed, but a recount where all mail-in ballots are recognized as illegal and discarded. Such a proceeding would either be impossible as the ballots have become mixed into other piles, or take a very long time to count. In the meantime, if the election remains undecided, current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will assume the presidency on Jan. 20. Pelosi is extremely forceful and sly 80-year-old woman, who would personally shoot Trump point blank with pleasure if the Supreme Court allowed it.
Another option could involve changing the electors in the swing states. Trump would then receive a majority of the votes if the Republicans could maintain discipline within their party, because the Republicans control all local courts in these four states.****
If neither Trump nor Biden win a majority or 270 of the electoral votes because the Supreme Court rules that the votes of the four swing states in question should not be counted, then the right to elect the president will revert to Congress. Such a turn of events has not occurred in nearly 200 years, since Democratic candidate John Quincy Adams, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia during the War of 1812, was elected.
Adams also lost both the popular and the electoral vote. But Adams' move into what was then a brand new White House was made possible because he was elected by Congress, which voted according to the principle of one state, one vote. Today, this would most likely grant Trump a victory, because Republicans hold a majority of the seats in Congress. However, Republican Party discipline and unity would have to be stronger than Mao Zedong's.
In other words, the chances of Trump winning are microscopic. At each stage of the battle the Democrats and their sponsors will fight to the death. They are willing to go as far as it takes, in a way that rivals the Maidan protests in Ukraine. The Republicans will be able to raise an entire army in response only with incredible luck; we have seen that stereotypical rednecks leave their natural habitat quite reluctantly, though they be armed to the teeth and dead set against the Black Lives Matter movement, among other things. On the other hand, antifa protesters are quite mobile.
Everyone knows that the risks are enormous and that such a contest of powers would be destructive for the U.S., so one can expect that somebody at some stage of the proceedings — justices, electors or members of Congress — will decide to end the contest and hand the White House over to Biden.
Yet, in the end, such a result is pretty convenient for Republicans: they receive Biden, an extremely weak president with a doubtful legitimacy,**** who will be forced to work with them. It is easy to demand compromises and compensation from such presidents. Furthermore, it will be easy to lower the risk of voter falsification in the future and win the White House back in four years.
It is far easier for Republicans to betray Trump then risk their lives or their country. Otherwise, The New York Times would have reason to publish a portrait of Cayce on its front page with a caption reading, "He was right!"
However, this will only occur if there are any newspapers in the new United States, a country broken, troubled and drowning in violence.
*Editor’s note: On Dec. 11, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit by Texas asking the court to throw out election results in four battleground states that President Trump lost in November.
**Editor’s note: Supreme Court decisions may be overturned by subsequent rulings of the court on constitutional issues. The court does not hear or rule on evidence, but only considers the record of the lower court decisions. Further, when the Supreme Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
***Editor’s note: It is not clear what case the author is referring to and this fact could not be verified.
****Editor’s note: The author’s assertion is unproven and cannot be verified.
Just five days before U.S. electors were set to cast their votes for Joe Biden, Republicans unveiled their main weapon, a previously unannounced lawsuit by Texas filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could grant Donald Trump a victory, but the justices must first choose quickly between the lesser of two evils: Biden as president or complete devastation.*
A Christian may not believe prophets or psychics; an atheist should not. However, those who hate the United States as an entity involved in international politics will most likely want to believe in Edgar Cayce's prediction. Cayce, who died in 1945, was a clairvoyant from Kentucky who continues have a large following to this day.
It is believed that he predicted the Great Depression and both world wars. Cayce made his predictions in a dreamlike state, floating between sleep and consciousness. Another of Cayce's predictions posited that the 44th president of the U.S. would be its last.
Barack Obama was the 44th president of the U.S. After his election, some especially impressionable Americans moved into bunkers to await the apocalypse — such was the effect of Cayce's prediction, and racism, as well. However, this prediction was later reevaluated and Trump was proclaimed the 44th (and last) president of the United States. The reasoning behind this change was the belief that Grover Cleveland's two presidential terms (he was the 22nd and 24th president) should be counted as one, with no regard for the break in between.
Today the now deceased Cayce has the chance to be proven right. No, not because Trump will start a nuclear war before Biden's inauguration, but because the United States will cease to exist as a country. There is now hope that Trump might steal victory back from Biden with the help of Republican Party discipline and the U.S. judicial system.
If Trump is really lucky, he will be declared the winner of the presidential election despite the fact that he received 7 million fewer popular votes than Biden and lost the electoral vote. He will become a usurper president who is hated by the American media, Wall Street, the intelligentsia, the bureaucracy, the Democratic Party (which now controls the House of Representatives) and whole armies of protesters (from the Black Lives Matter movement to antifa).
If Trump is elected it could cause an enormous conflict, including possible civil war, rebellion, revolution, secession or just a simple change in the form of government, which could give the presidency to the secretary of state.
But most likely this will not happen, because all psychics are frauds. Nevertheless, the Republican Party has suddenly unveiled its trump card (pun intended!) and it has become obvious that their bid to retain control of the presidency is much more serious than it seemed even as little as a week ago.
At that time, the legal battle in the swing states was basically over, and not in favor of Trump. In addition, Trump's right-hand man, personal lawyer and former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, tested positive for COVID-19 (not a laughing matter for the 76-year-old).
Now the general opinion is that these legal squabbles have been a distraction while the Trump team was building truly impressive weapon against Biden. This weapon was the Texas lawsuit against Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the states where Trump is certain he was swindled out of a victory. With great speed, 17 additional Republican states quickly joined the lawsuit — this united front was probably also organized beforehand — after all of the hits and misses of Trump's lawsuits in the lower courts had been taken into account.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz will present this case before the Supreme Court. Cruz has experience working for one of the Supreme Court justices, and has a formidable reputation as one of the best lawyers in Congress with a very high IQ. In fact, it was Cruz who drafted the sanctions bill which paused the construction of Nord Stream II.
Cruz lost to Trump during the 2016 primaries, but supported him in the presidential election (albeit with a heavy heart — his words). Later on, when it became obvious that the new president had a loyal voter base and the Democrats were going crazy, Cruz became a steadfast Trump supporter. After all, nowadays, it is incredibly profitable for a Republican to be a Trump supporter, and Cruz (as previously mentioned) is a smart man.
Part of the important historic process taking place this December will rely on Cruz’s intellect, while the rest depends on the Supreme Court. This institution is indeed all powerful; its justices are controlled by no one and nothing, and they can determine the fate of the United States for decades to come. Supreme Court decisions can be overturned only by constitutional amendment.** And yet, the main function of the Supreme Court seems quite humble. It is the final court of appeal, where the constitutionality of various issues is determined. Evidence is neither presented to nor considered by the court, and the decision of the justices is final.**
But, in those rare cases where states sue each other (like the current situation, in which Texas is bringing four states to court) the process appears to be more like a traditional court hearing, with a defendant and a plaintiff, and the submission of evidence. A new game has begun, and if it is won, then Trump may try to stay in the White House for four more years.
At least on paper, the majority (six of nine) of the Supreme Court justices are conservative. In fact, Trump appointed three of these six justices himself. But Democrats are convinced that he did not have the right to make the appointments, and they may give us cause to remember it.
As a general rule, conservatives usually go against their party politics. For example, it was the Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vote (no relation to John F. Kennedy) which legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S. Kennedy was originally a traditionally minded, diehard Republican when he was nominated by Ronald Reagan. Similarly, it was one of Trump's appointees, Neil Gorsuch, who voted to destroy half of Oklahoma.*** No doubt the current U.S. president would like to impeach him for this decision, but does not have the right to do so.
Justices have no loyalty to parties or politics. They are appointed for life and make decisions based on their own understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
Texas will try to prove, with the support of at least 17 states, that four swing states broke constitutional law when they introduced new rules concerning mail-in ballots (a logical measure in the era of COVID-19, but very easy to falsify).**** If Texas succeeds in gaining the support of at least five justices, Biden — along with many others — could have a heart attack.*
Whatever options the Supreme Court may offer if the majority rules in favor in Trump could present either a colossal political crisis and interparty slaughter, or a second term of the "orange monster" with plenty of strikes, guerrilla warfare, division and other indications that the current American form of government is dead.
Such a crisis will occur if the Supreme Court determines that a recount of the ballots in the swing states is needed, but a recount where all mail-in ballots are recognized as illegal and discarded. Such a proceeding would either be impossible as the ballots have become mixed into other piles, or take a very long time to count. In the meantime, if the election remains undecided, current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will assume the presidency on Jan. 20. Pelosi is extremely forceful and sly 80-year-old woman, who would personally shoot Trump point blank with pleasure if the Supreme Court allowed it.
Another option could involve changing the electors in the swing states. Trump would then receive a majority of the votes if the Republicans could maintain discipline within their party, because the Republicans control all local courts in these four states.****
If neither Trump nor Biden win a majority or 270 of the electoral votes because the Supreme Court rules that the votes of the four swing states in question should not be counted, then the right to elect the president will revert to Congress. Such a turn of events has not occurred in nearly 200 years, since Democratic candidate John Quincy Adams, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia during the War of 1812, was elected.
Adams also lost both the popular and the electoral vote. But Adams' move into what was then a brand new White House was made possible because he was elected by Congress, which voted according to the principle of one state, one vote. Today, this would most likely grant Trump a victory, because Republicans hold a majority of the seats in Congress. However, Republican Party discipline and unity would have to be stronger than Mao Zedong's.
In other words, the chances of Trump winning are microscopic. At each stage of the battle the Democrats and their sponsors will fight to the death. They are willing to go as far as it takes, in a way that rivals the Maidan protests in Ukraine. The Republicans will be able to raise an entire army in response only with incredible luck; we have seen that stereotypical rednecks leave their natural habitat quite reluctantly, though they be armed to the teeth and dead set against the Black Lives Matter movement, among other things. On the other hand, antifa protesters are quite mobile.
Everyone knows that the risks are enormous and that such a contest of powers would be destructive for the U.S., so one can expect that somebody at some stage of the proceedings — justices, electors or members of Congress — will decide to end the contest and hand the White House over to Biden.
Yet, in the end, such a result is pretty convenient for Republicans: they receive Biden, an extremely weak president with a doubtful legitimacy,**** who will be forced to work with them. It is easy to demand compromises and compensation from such presidents. Furthermore, it will be easy to lower the risk of voter falsification in the future and win the White House back in four years.
It is far easier for Republicans to betray Trump then risk their lives or their country. Otherwise, The New York Times would have reason to publish a portrait of Cayce on its front page with a caption reading, "He was right!"
However, this will only occur if there are any newspapers in the new United States, a country broken, troubled and drowning in violence.
*Editor’s note: On Dec. 11, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit by Texas asking the court to throw out election results in four battleground states that President Trump lost in November.
**Editor’s note: Supreme Court decisions may be overturned by subsequent rulings of the court on constitutional issues. The court does not hear or rule on evidence, but only considers the record of the lower court decisions. Further, when the Supreme Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
***Editor’s note: It is not clear what case the author is referring to and this fact could not be verified.
****Editor’s note: The author’s assertion is unproven and cannot be verified.
Previous article![]( "Texas: Trump Plays Latest Hand against Biden")
Next article![]( "Biden Also Has Good Reasons To Withdraw Troops")
