Sidney Powell: America is now a ‘Communist regime’
One of the lawyers who fought, without a lot of success, to have evidence of fraud in the 2020 presidential election reviewed by the courts in America has delivered a harsh verdict on the state of the nation under President Joe Biden.
Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor, worked on cases that, had they succeeded, would have been to the benefit of President Trump.
They argued various state election systems mishandled mailed ballots, absentee ballots and even suggested fraudulent ballots, with huge dumps of votes all for Biden sometimes appearing in the dark-of-the-night hours.
She was interviewed on The Talk of Pittsburgh radio, the Rose Unplugged show.
“The world is absolutely upside down because this country is upside down,” she charged. “They’re feeding lies to the American people very single day. Just the fact that they’re saying Biden is president is a lie because we’ve still got to resolve the election issue.”
While the allegations of deception and mishandling of ballots never got reviewed – most judges dismissed the cases on technicalities – what is not in question is that in multiple states where Biden narrowly was the winner state officials changed state laws to accommodate some ballots.
The difficulty with that is that the Constitution requires state lawmakers to control those variables.
The Gateway Pundit explained Powell said, “We are living under a Communist totalitarian regime. If the voting machine companies had nothing to hide, they wouldn’t be hiding anything.”
She charged there were millions of fraudulent votes for Biden in 2020.
Even after her lawsuits over the election were closed down, Powell remained unshaken.
Earlier, she told Erskine Radio in an interview that there is “more than enough evidence in the public now to more than reverse the election in at least five states.”
“There’s all kind of precedent for fixing what happened in this election from Bush vs. Gore to other cases as well,” she said, the Gateway Pundit reported.
Powell said the existence of “fractionalized votes” weighted in favor of Joe Biden, created by a computer algorithm, can be proved in multiple counties. And it could be proved across the country, she said, “if anybody would issue an order allowing inspection of the machines.”
She noted that federal law calls for election records to be kept for 22 months.
“In this case it requires forensic evaluations of the machines and looking at all of the paper ballots. We already know that’s not going to match up,” she said. “There were counterfeit ballots. People were saying, ‘Oh, well they did a full audit in Georgia.’ Well, if you just keep running the same counterfeit bill through the same counting machine you’re going to get the same result.”
Here the interview:
She said there’s no reasonable explanation for the courts not having reviewed the evidence.
Going on right now in Arizona is a fully audit of all 2.1 million ballots from Maricopa County. Results are expected in a couple of weeks but Democrats repeatedly have gone to court to try to have the results suppressed.
She noted that more than 5,000 people have signed sworn affidavits as witnesses of election anomalies or fraud.
Powell served in the Department of Justice for 10 years and for the last 20 years has devoted her private practice to federal appeals. She was the youngest assistant U.S attorney and later became chief of the appellate section for the Western and Northern Districts of Texas.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch took a minority position at the Supreme Court when it rejected several election disputes, arguing that the court should have taken up election challenges from Pennsylvania.
Thomas warned of “catastrophic” consequences if the court doesn’t address the issue of authorities “changing the rules in the middle of the game.”
University of California at Irvine Professor Rick Hasen on his Election Law Blog wrote it’s “a ticking time bomb” that the Supreme Court “is going to have to resolve.”
Hasen wrote: “So why didn’t the court go further in this case? My guess is that it is either the fact that the case is moot (and the court would rather address the issue in the context of a live case, but with lower stakes) or because the Trump cases are somewhat radioactive at the court. Given former President Trump’s continued false statements that the election was stolen, the case would become a further vehicle to argue that the election results were illegitimate. It would thrust the court back in the spotlight on an issue the justices showed repeatedly they wanted to avoid.
“So the bottom line is that the independent state legislature doctrine hangs out there, as a ticking time bomb, waiting to go off in a future case,” he said.
Thomas said the Pennsylvania cases “provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle.”
“The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
He said there’s little dispute about the facts:
The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections. … Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various states took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future.