There is at least one good reason to support Donald Trump’s ongoing lawsuits challenging election results in multiple states: The U.S. foreign policy establishment doesn’t want you to do it.
As Newsweek reported last week, “A group of over 100 national security experts” from the Republican administrations condemned the president’s challenges to the counting process of some states. These “experts” claim that these legal efforts “undermine democracy” and “risk causing long-term harm” to national institutions. The signatories include people like Michael Hayden, John Negroponte and Tom Ridge. These are the usual kind of ‘deep state’ technocrats – for example, James Comey and John Brennan – who step in to defend the status quo in the United States and insist that it is a scandal that anybody (i.e. Donald Trump) is deviating from the usual way of doing things.
This alleged devotion to “democracy” and “institutions of the nation” sounds a bit odd coming from people like Negroponte and Hayden. Hayden, after all, has supported a litany of programs of espionage, torture and mass destruction of the human rights of Americans and countless foreigners. Negroponte was the first director of national intelligence and has long supported spying on warrantless U.S. citizens. He oversaw the US funded terrorist campaigns against Hondurans during the Reagan administration. Negroponte also enthusiastically supported the United States’ war in Iraq in 2003, which failed to achieve any of the goals sold to the Americans because war was a necessity.
Through scandals like the Abu-Graib debacle, unconstitutional wiretapping, torture, and relentless paranoid calls for an ever-growing national security state, the US foreign policy establishment has done more to undermine democracy and American institutions that Trump could never hope for.
Yet these people now speak as if they were moral authorities on preserving the rights of Americans.
Given their clear disregard for basic human rights over the past decades, however, it is suspected that this is more likely to be really The motivation behind the denunciation by the signatories of Trump’s election lawsuits is a desire to get back to “business as usual.” After all, it would make it easier for the regime to go back to dismantling the Bill of Rights, launching new wars, and generally doing whatever it wants.
It becomes more difficult to do if millions of Americans begin to suspect that the regime is not as legitimate as it has long been claimed, and that perhaps the game is rigged against those who are not friendly enough to them. the permanent government in Washington and so on. -called deep state.
But lest anyone thinks the U.S. election integrity investigation is a worthwhile endeavor, these national security bureaucrats resort to the usual, tired claim:
“By encouraging President Trump’s delaying tactics or by remaining silent, Republican leaders are putting… national security at risk.”
The message is this: Dear supporters of Trump, if you demand a thorough lawsuit and a careful examination of the outcome of this election, then you are supporting “the enemies of America”. We have heard a similar sentiment from these people before when the Bush administration said “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. The message now is: “either you are with us or you are with the Chinese totalitarians.”
This is the usual sort of trick that has been used by the US foreign policy establishment for decades, and this is just the latest illustration. This same impetus is why longtime leader of the conservative movement William F. Buckley called for “a totalitarian bureaucracy” in the United States as long as it served the interests of the US national security state.
What’s the harm in contesting the election?
However, more reasonable people should see the value and need for a slow, thorough, and public legal review of the election.
Regardless of what you think of Donald Trump, anyone who values fair play, honesty and the votes of legal voters should want to in-depth audits and investigations. The question: “To what extent was this election affected by fraud?” warrants serious consideration and serious investigation into how the election was conducted. After all, whenever political power is at stake, there is no reason to assume that honesty and integrity guides the actions of all parties involved.
Fraud happens with each election, of course. Anyone who claims an election contains no the fraud lives in a fantasy land or lies. Election fraud exists wherever votes are cast. There are many anecdotes of fraud in this election, from backdated ballots in Pennsylvania to “coaching” voters in Detroit. The question is whether this sort of thing is widespread enough to change the outcome. In a number of lawsuits, the Trump campaign has suggested it is widespread.
And there is nothing wrong with allowing the legal process to continue. After all, legally and constitutionally, the US electoral process is still on schedule.
Contrary to what various reporters seem to think, it is not true that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris “were declared the election winners more than two weeks ago, after Fox News, The Associated Press and other TV channels called him ”. Presidential election results are not being reported by infotainment artists working at Fox News.
Federal laws and constitutional provisions instead state that the Electoral College will meet in December, and the Congress will declare a winner shortly thereafter. This process is not likely to derail.
It’s a shame that people like Michael Hayden don’t respect this constitutional process, but that’s just normal for someone who was a director of the CIA.
For those who genuinely care about a certain measure of accountability and transparency on the part of government institutions tasked with organizing elections, there should be no problem with a presidential candidate demanding a wide variety of legal challenges. . This in itself will not solve the problem of electoral fraud and will not enforce the human rights of anyone by the regime. That would not make majority government any less of a problem. But it would be useful to gather more information on the gulf between the perception of “free and fair elections” and reality. And that’s the least one can do in the wake of an election where the outcome is tight, messy, and led by politicians who are highly unlikely to have the interests of average Americans at heart.
#election #free #fair #Foreign #Policy #Office #doesnt #care #Dateway