Last Updated on November 12, 2020
Prominent Democrats are now demanding that President Donald Trump drop investigations into alleged voter fraud, claiming the campaign’s challenges have been made “without evidence”.
But Democrats won an order for a “redo election” under the same circumstances in a U.S. House election in North Carolina’s ninth congressional district after a tightly contested 2018 campaign there.
There was scant evidence of voter fraud in the 2018 election for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District when the Democrat-dominated State Board of Elections (SBE) refused to certify the result on November 27th, 2018, after meeting in a session closed to the public.
That was twenty-one days after Republican Mark Harris won and McReady conceded. As of the final count, Harris won with a margin of victory of 0.32% and a 905-vote advantage.
North Carolina Democrats demanded that the North Carolina election not be certified, citing anomalies in public records in a letter from their attorney.
Democrats later touted testimony alleging that campaign operative Leslie McCrae Dowless ran a scheme to “harvest” 1000-2000 ballots.
Ballot harvesting is the controversial practice of collecting absentee and/or mail-in ballots from voters. In most cases ballot harvesters do this to guarantee a successful vote. In some cases, they do it to intercept a vote and keep it from counting.
The practice is illegal in many states but exceptions are common for family members and caregivers. Democrats spent years lobbying and litigating to legalize ballot harvesting, arguing that it is critical for minority voters.
After a three-month legal battle to overturn the results of the North Carolina election, Democrats won a decision to set a new election for September 10, 2019.
In February of 2019, the Democrat Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman announced an indictment of Dowless for election fraud. In April of 2020, the Department of Justice indicted Dowless on unrelated charges.
As of the time of writing, no trial has taken place in either case. There is still no “smoking gun” proof of voter fraud in the 2018 North Carolina election. Witness statements and statistical irregularities are the only public evidence.
Meanwhile, the Trump Campaign is currently filing lawsuits in various states after videos of poll watchers turned away, witness accounts of ballot-stuffing and serious statistical anomalies emerged casting doubt on Vice President Joe Biden’s rapid swing-state comeback in the days after the November 3rd election.
In addition, glitches in voting software gave tens of thousands of Trump votes to Biden and various groups found indications that massive numbers of ballots were cast for dead voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
RIchard Baris – who the New York Post recently featured for being one of the most accurate pollsters of 2016 and 2020 – confirmed that just under 10,000 absentee ballots for dead voters were received in Michigan in a “small” test he conducted.
In related news, the North Carolina legislature could give the Supreme Court cover to rule in Trump’s favor by re-filing Moore v. Circosta, legal sources close to National File confirm.
According to legal strategists familiar with election law and State Boards of Election, the Republican strategy of limiting the scope of the President’s election challenges to states where there is a clear political advantage is not ideal.
According to our sources familiar with the president’s legal strategy, Trump could be better positioned to win Pennsylvania by giving the Supreme Court cover to not be in the position of deciding the entire Presidential election.
The same sources told National File that the way to do that is by reviving the North Carolina case, Moore v. Circosta, a challenge to last-minute rules changes by Democrats governing absentee ballots.
By reviving Circosta, the Supreme Court could avoid a scenario where they are accused by Democrats of effectively deciding the entire election based on one decision and in one state.
Additionally, Circosta was not rejected on its merits. The case remains stalled because the Supreme Court refused to grant injunctive relief by intervening before the election. Instead the court said the issue should be revisited after the election.
The Court actually responded somewhat favorably to the plaintiff’s claims in Moore v. Circosta, and some think the Supreme Court’s posture is even more favorable toward Circosta than it is toward the president’s legal case in Pennsylvania.
Reviving Circosta would set the standard that legislatures decide these matters rather than the courts, a precedent Republicans and conservatives have longed to reinstate.
According to National File sources, key elements within the Circosta case might well help strike down the Pennsylvania decision, but the Supreme Court can only do this if they know Circosta is also being pursued.
By setting this standard, the Supreme Court would not only be pressured to make a fair decision in Pennsylvania, but also would be able to use an uncontested state as the justification for Pennsylvania and the overall decision would be less divisive.
Our sources suggest that if the case gets revived, it should be in the Eastern District Court in North Carolina because the Supreme Court might ignore it if it’s revived in some other way.
“We’re fighting the lawsuit in all of the contested states, but by ignoring the uncontested states we’re allowing the Democrats to essentially dictate where the fight is occurring, which appears to be part of their strategy,” said one legal strategist.
Congressman Bishop replied, “I think every candidate who is in position to do so should pursue appropriate litigation to assure rights and rule of law.”
