Do Not Hold Your Breath Waiting on SCOTUS or Even Congress.

There are ample statistical patterns, coordinated counting stops, odd vote tally increases, foreign corporate connections and affidavits that suggest Dominion altered the vote count in a number of ways. The problem is proving it in a court of law. A politically bias, or even corrupt, judge might dismiss a case and evidence while demanding a higher standard of proof. Such proof would be hard to find without an official government investigation. That investigation would have to go more in depth than the US Senate inquiries of 2019 and US House of Representatives inquiries dating slightly earlier. It would need to look at internal company communication as well as personal communication of corporate personnel. Such would require a lot of time, effort and political will contrary to a ruling Socialist political party which is serious about staying in power by any means necessary. You might compare the Democrat Party to the Chinese Communist Party at this point while also stating "It is going to get worse before it gets better," if it ever gets better.

However, that is only one case against Dominion, out of over 30 other cases against different aspects of election fraud and voter fraud across the USA.

In Pennsylvania, Dominion refused to answer questions before the Commonwealth Legislature, possibly fearing a criminal referral of some form. In other places, States, Commonwealths, and Countries, Dominion has closed offices and fled from the jurisdiction and scene. Preserving evidence, stopping the destruction of evidence would be very difficult at this point. Unless, it is true that some branch of the US government actually did raid and confiscate Dominion's back-up servers in Frankfurt, Germany. The chain and transfer of evidence might be questioned. Analyzing those servers would require time and expertise. Who would have that? Would the issue then become one of national security secrets against a corporation and other governments as opposed to a public court battle? While the latter could be the US Government or a Particular State v. Dominion, there are other issues which need to be addressed in a timely manner.

A State Attorney General is not going to prosecute a State Office of Elections. The Attorney General might go after particular persons in the Office of Elections, or even the Democrat Party, if coordinated fraud can be proven, especially for fraudulent vote ballot box stuffing. Then, the video evidence and even the over 400 sworn affidavits showing various election fraud and violations of election laws would each be contested, many as hear say. Those committing fraud, are likely to lie under oath, without regard for penalties, as they try to protect themselves, by "closing ranks." It is a typical behavior.

One also wonders about the video and audio leaked to the public regarding how Detroit election counters were instructed to throw out various votes. Then there are the postal employee complaints in Pennsylvania about witnessing the organized back dating of postal stamps on ballots and being told not to deliver Republican Party and President Trump election mail. In Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia Republican Party vote count monitors were blocked and prevented from doing their jobs. There are reports of vote counters correcting ballots across the country, but particular to those aforementioned States-Commonwealths. Even Wisconsin is said to have counted incompletely and improperly filled out ballots. There is no point in continuing to list the huge number election wrongs when they may be observed through videos posted on the internet in numbers that are truly shocking. Still, the issue is, who would be the plaintiffs and who would be the defendants? Most of these legal cases, 3 or 4 by President Trump, and 30 or so by other parties, only matter in changing State-Commonwealth vote counts which have not been certified yet. For the most part, once a vote count is certified, it can not be changed.

Only if someone's Rights have been violated will any of those legal actions get to the SCOTUS. It is clear that the Democrat Party through the government did violate President Trump's Rights before, during and after the 2016 presidential elections, but that is not an issue being litigated today. The question would be how have President Trump's Rights been violated in the 2020 election? Then, the next question would be, what remedy could the SCOTUS in actuality provide? Now, here is the big difficulty in the SCOTUS. To the best of my understanding, in Gore v. Bush, the SCOTUS held that it was not their jurisdiction to decide elections, toss out certified election results, or stand the way of certified election results being presented by the States-Commonwealths to the US Senate and US House of Representatives. Are there any remedies that would prevail outside of those three action? Having seen and understanding the abuse that several SCOTUS justices endured from the Democrat Party, including those committed by Biden and Harris personally, and suspecting that the SCOTUS does not wish to be "packed" with additional justices by the Democrat Party's attempt to politicize and control judicial verdicts and opinions, one might wonder what could a Constitutionalist and non-activist SCOTUS really do? Activist justices get away with distorting the law and legislating from the bench for that reason. Considering the ACA "adjuster" Chief Justice Roberts for one, who has continued in attempts to pass law through the judicial branch.

So, while the legal options maybe strictly limited, the political options are better for President Trump. Many Americans understand that if President Trump and Joe Biden were to each end the same amount of electors, or if neither were to get the majority of electors, over a total of 270, during the general election, then the selection of the President and Vice President would fall to the US Senate and US House of Representatives. However, what few Americans know or understand is that the process of removing the decision of who will be the next president and vice president from the popular vote and electoral college, thus requiring the US Senate and US House of Representatives to make the decision, is actually substantially easier to accomplish.

This goes beyond the fact that State-Commonwealth Legislatures can strip away electors from one candidate for president and award them to another candidate, based on perceived improprieties and criminal actions during the popular election, as such might be possible in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin, considering Offices of Elections' therein numerous violations of the law and court orders.

In all actuality, after the States-Commonwealths have submitted their 7 reports to the US Senate and US House of Representatives, detailing that they have had elections and informing of the results, the only thing required to make the selection of the President and Vice President fall on the US Senate and US House of Representatives would be, for one US Senator and one US Congressman from the same State-Commonwealth, to stand up on the floor of their respective bodies, declaring that they do not believe the election in one particular State-Commonwealth or their own particular State-Commonwealth was honest, fair, and acceptable. Again, while the Senator and Congressman must come from the same State-Commonwealth, their is some disagreement among constitutional scholars as to if they must be from the State-Commonwealth which they object against.

With regards to the voting rules, the Senate has already established one vote for each Senator in electing a Vice President. While in the House of Representatives, historically, in 1800 and again in 1820, it has been one vote by each State-Commonwealth Delegation for the purpose of electing a president. Still, the House of Representatives could possibly attempt to change its rules. This election would be carried out by the former Congress and not the one newly elected. Such may or may not also explain the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi attempting disband the House of Representatives before the holidays so quickly, even despite her State's CoVid19 restrictions and the current Election Crisis which could result in political and civil unrest.

Most of the process aforementioned is detailed in the US CONSTITUTION. Sadly, not enough people read the document.

Even worse, ask yourself, do you know any Senator and any Representative from the same State-Commonwealth who would have the courage to object as is necessary? Will that be the end of the USA? Will US elections become more like those of the former USSR and the PRC? Will Democrats have the full force of the government to persecute their political opponents as if they were enemies of a one party Socialist state? All it would take is for one Senator and one Representative to have the courage to start the resistance. You get the government you deserve.