To tease the public about the mountain of evidence she had accumulated on voting fraud occurring in the 2020 presidential election, attorney Sydney Powell said she would “release the Kraken.” The reference was to a 2006 sci-fi movie about a giant squid. Just like the movie’s monster, Powell’s Kraken had many tentacles leading to numerous claims of fraud.
As she and others seek court access to slay the beast, two points of interest arise. First, do the evidentiary tentacles of voting fraud lead back to a central source? And, second, does the best chance to slay the Kraken lie, not in attacking it directly, but employing an indirect attack that avoids the voter fraud issue?
Before unleashing the Kraken upon the 2020 presidential election, Democrats had been feeding it in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s 2016 election win. It was nourished on a diet of lies and half-truths aimed at undermining the legitimacy of his presidency. Those feeding it were unhinged liberal Democrats, aided by a fake news media, with both groups acting irresponsibly and with zero accountability. For four years, the monster grew – its initial food source the Trump/Russia collusion hoax but, as that failed, feeding on other false claims.
As a second Trump term in office was unacceptable to Democrats, steps were taken both before the election as well as the day of the election to pave the way for a Joe Biden win.
As Powell fights her battle to slay the Kraken, other attorneys – such as Rudy Giuliani – who have collected arsenals of evidence are fighting their own battles to overturn the election results as well. For the most part, their lawsuits, filed in both state and federal courts, have been dismissed, not so much on an evidentiary basis as on a procedural or timing basis.
As to the first point of interest above – whether a centralized “Doctor Frankenstein” masterminded control of his monster – there is little supportive evidence linking back to a single actor. While there may well have been some regional collaboration, no concrete evidence points to a single puppeteer. This, then, raises the question, what would have triggered so many independent players to criminally act to steal the election?
There are several answers to this question, but money was a key factor in keeping the Kraken alive and well. Big money paid for 5 million counterfeit absentee ballots to be printed in China. Much less money was involved in buying and harvesting ballots.
Clearly, however, the biggest factor that effectively worked to steal the election – if proven – can be linked to the company providing the voting machines. It has been alleged that a post-election forensic examination of one of those machines in Ware County, Georgia, had intriguing results. When an equal number of Trump votes and Biden votes were inserted into it, the machine’s tabulator converted 26% of the former to the latter. This raises concerns on a national level as the voting machines served 40% of voters in 28 states.
But, regardless of the players involved in the fraud, what undoubtedly motivated their actions was that they all took the bait – hook, line and sinker – cast by an irresponsible liberal element that Trump was the Devil incarnate.
As to the second point of interest,whether an indirect attack plan to slay the Kraken exists, such an avenue is being pursued by a very creative attorney general in Texas – Ken Paxton – enabling him to take his case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS).
Texas appears to be one state that avoided voting fraud. In fact, state officials have offered a $1 million reward to anyone with evidence it occurred. Texas also complied with its own state voting laws passed by its legislature. However, there are at least four battleground states that implemented absentee voting law changes via a process failing to comply with their own state election laws and, thus, were non-compliant with the U.S. Constitution.
In a nutshell, what Paxton is claiming is because these states implemented changes through the courts or executive action and not through the state legislatures, they have violated the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution mandating it. Thus, the SCOTUS is presented with a specific question of law, rather than one of evidence – whether non-legislatively mandated changes governing the appointment of electors violates the Constitution. If so, the lawsuit demands the electoral votes of the non-conforming states be voided, resulting in no clear winner of the presidential sweepstakes due to insufficient electoral votes. This would leave the decision up to the four state legislatures. The brilliance of this lawsuit is that it does not burden the SCOTUS with determining if massive voter fraud occurred, immensely reducing issue complexity. Paxton conducts an indirect attack to slay the Kraken.
In filing the lawsuit, Paxton said, “Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. …”
One may query what right Texas has to raise such a claim against other states. Its argument is that all states have a duty to comply with the U.S. Constitution, which inures to the benefit of the entire Union. Where states fail to do so, especially in a presidential election, non-complying states detrimentally impact on complying states. Since Texas was a win for Trump and the four non-complying states were Biden wins, Texas has been detrimentally impacted by their actions. The bottom-line question is if a state fails to comply with its own election laws and thus with the Constitution, does it then lose the right for its electoral votes to be cast in accordance with its popular vote?
In 1836, vastly outnumbered defenders in the Battle of the Alamo in what is now San Antonio, Texas, courageously fought against Mexican forces for almost two weeks before being overrun and slaughtered. It was a pivotal event in the Texas Revolution. Texas again finds itself playing a pivotal role in history. Hopefully, its success before the SCOTUS will prove there is more than one way to skin a Kraken.
This article appeared originally on WND.