Himalaya Canada, Maple Leaf Farm, Liberte
Proof reader Amy
“I worked for several federal judges, one of them a Stevens-style Republican, and the other one a Clinton or leftist Democrat, but both of them held the view that the law’s the law – what the legislature wrote and not what they wanted – so they often found themselves writing opinions where the outcome does not please them but they believed it to be required by law.
Working for these judges gave me an entirely unrealistic expectation of what the bench was like. Because when I went out into the real world as a newly minted baby litigator, I discovered that a great many judges both federal and state, just decide whatever they damn well please, generally in a way that fits their political prejudices and ideologies, and don’t even worry about whether they’re upholding the law and the Constitution beyond the risk of getting reversed.” 
This inside account of the secretive world of the Judiciary in the United States is instructive as we observe the behavior of the Judicial branch during this unprecedented time. We have seen Circuit Courts, Federal Courts, Appeals Courts, State Supreme Courts and even the United States Supreme Court almost uniformly punt on considering the lawsuits predicated on charges of fraud in the 2020 US election.
There is an indelible sense by 50% of the population that something is deeply flawed about the election, based on evidence which is best summarized by Peter Navarro in his report “The Immaculate Deception”. This is bad enough. This indelible sense has since metastasized into a strong belief as we see the extraordinary efforts to which the “Axis of Evil” (Media, Social Media, Democrats, complicit Republicans, aided by the CPP) have gone to harass, belittle, suppress, censor, and demean those who simply demand a fair airing of what happened. This strong belief has subsequently strengthened into a near certainty after the lawsuits brought by the Trump-aligned forces have been breezily and summarily dismissed by the Judiciary branch based on technicalities and without consideration of the substance of the arguments.
On December 17th we learned of alleged heated arguments in the US Supreme Court Chambers between the justices about the lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of Texas on behalf of the citizens of Texas and supported by many other States. Video of a member of the SREC (State Republican Executive Committee) was released where the member recites alleged evidence from a whistleblower (a staffer at the Supreme Court of the US) who heard a screaming argument through the wall of his office of Chief Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices insisting that this case not be taken up by SCOTUS. Conservative justices Thomas and Alito were heard citing Bush versus Gore  in 2000 as a reason why SCOTUS must take up the case. Roberts’s screaming response was “I don’t give a f*** about Bush versus Gore or that case, I don’t want to hear about it. At that time we didn’t have riots” .
Here is the direct account from the SCOTUS staffer:
The SREC member states that “this indicates that justice Roberts was afraid of what would happen, perhaps to him personally and his family if SCOTUS did the right thing. That is moral cowardice.” 
I cannot confirm or deny the veracity of this whistleblower’s account, however, it is congruent with the now near certainty by at least 50% of the population that too many of our ‘ruling class’ – be it in the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branches of Government – is betraying their oaths of office, the citizens, the Republic and the Constitution.
Instead of Rule of Law, we are seeing a rule of terror the likes of what was experienced in the former Soviet Union, or is currently experienced in CCP China and was most recently enforced upon Hong Kong.
If true, this might trigger the Executive Order 13848 of September 2018 “Imposing certain sanctions in the event of Foreign Interference in the US election”. The President could reveal to the US public all the evidence of CCP (and complicit domestic actors) infiltration, interference and intimidation tactics during the 2020 election.
The President could consider using his prerogative powers to deal with the internal and external crisis. This power can be used to investigate and expose the truth behind the election. It can also be used to determine the foreign interference in the election. First, this would involve declaring a state of national emergency which gives him many powers including imposing martial law. Secondly, releasing all incriminating evidence on the suspected fraudulent and traitorous groups. The more incontrovertible the evidence, the more likely the public and the two parties are to accept the drastic actions. Thirdly, implementing limited martial law thereby mobilizing the military to control all executive and judicial powers to be able to investigate the coup. Lastly, applying the Insurrection Act  against the insurgents and have them tried in military courts.
After the insurgents have been tried in military court, martial law could be lifted, and new national elections could be arranged, controlled by the military.
We are not in a position to know all the complexities of the current situation and do not pretend to advise the President, but the unprecedented crisis the US finds itself in requires drastic action. President Trump will know the need for strong action and will have the strength to implement it.
⦁ Justin Schwartz, Former Federal Law Clerk, “are US Supreme Court Justices politically biased?”, Quora, April 26, 2019
⦁ Bush V Gore was a decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida’s 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed.
⦁ Hal Turner, Populist Press, “Justice caught admitting why he refused election fraud case”, December 17, 2020
⦁ The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion.