Have you been called a traitor? Answering the charge of treason

By Guy Page

I’ve been called a traitor for questioning the legitimacy of the presidential election. It’s a serious, painful charge. But is it true?

As of now, 686 of you have petitioned Congressman Peter Welch to investigate allegations of fraud. Is a petition treason? The First Amendment protects our right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” What could be more American?

Guy Page

On Wednesday, many Americans will exercise, and again I quote the First Amendment, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in Washington DC on January 6. No treason there either – it says so in our Constitution.

Is it treason to ask Congress to refuse the votes of state electors? No – U.S. law requires Congress to accept the electors vote – OR NOT. Congress is the last line of defense against electoral fraud conducted by the states. That’s not treason either.

Finally, would it be treason for our president to declare martial law? Precedent, law and the Constitution all say no, provided he has sufficient reason. Federal martial law was declared in 1857 in Utah and in 1861 and 1863 during the Civil War. The 1807 Insurrection Act allows presidential martial law “to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion“. The 9th amendment of the Bill of Rights says “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus” – the right to hearing and trial removed by martial law – “shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

But martial law is extreme and dangerous. That’s why America – starting in Congress – must face these allegations right now. Congressman Welch and our two senators – investigate these concerns. It’s not about who won the election. This very month could decide whether America has a future as “We The People.”

This is a crisis and it’s no time for sunshine patriots. Leaders in Government and media will face the judgement of history if the decisions they make this month lead to tyranny, chaos and injustice. And for everyone fighting for “We The People” I have a word for you: “Don’t Give Up.”

Read more of Guy Page’s reports. Vermont Daily is sponsored by True North Media.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore

45 thoughts on “Have you been called a traitor? Answering the charge of treason

  1. Asking Welch, Sanders, and Leahy to investigate allegations of fraud is a joke and a half. The 3 are democrats and will NEVER help Republicans, especially Pres Trump.. I wrote to all 3 and Condos to investigate the fraud.here in Vermont, and there was fraud 12,000 + extra votes. over the registered voters., Darn, that voting fairy !!!. Wonder if these extra 12,000+ voters pay taxes here??? We have 3 useless federal government official who is supposed to represent Vermonters, A governor, and legislators who are supposed to represent us.. IMP I think they should be fired because they don’t care about Vermont much less America. just their selves.

  2. As an ordinary citizen, I personally have not been called a traitor as of yet, but that is probably coming. A relative asked me back in September 2020 if I was a Trump supporter during a conversation. When I said I was, he literally screamed in my face that I was an effing racist and an effing bigot. I was stunned because his reaction was so out of character and so violent I thought he was going to slug me next. I stood my ground and demanded that he immediately cite for me an example from my personal life where I showed to his first-hand knowledge that I was an effing racist or an effing bigot. What I then got from him was dead silence. Not a word. So I then admonished him for that comment, about which he had no proof or knowledge. He then said he didn’t need any proof or knowledge of anything else, since my intention to vote for Trump proved I was a racist and a bigot. I then told him he needed to immediately stop using a Bill of Attainder on me. He was silent again, as he had no idea what I meant. The conversation came to a halt when he stomped away. We haven’t spoken since. This happened in supposedly tolerant Vermont, friends. The level of visceral hatred for conservatives and Trump supporters is dividing families and relatives. Biden’s call for unity cannot happen because two Americas exist in America, and they cannot reconcile because one side is consumed by hatred and is starting to sound more and more like Mao’s Cultural Revolution in Communist China several generations ago. If Biden and Harris get their hands on the reins of power, the Constitutional Republic will be in mortal danger. So will our individual liberties. Our elected representatives have a duty to safeguard the Republic by using the rights the Constitution gave them to investigate a stolen election. Better to have a figurative battle in Congress than violence in the streets. Just my opinion as a Vermont Republican voter who has read 1984, Brave New World, We the Living, Atlas Shrugged, and who voted for Donald Trump. The leftist Democrats started by going after our Republican political leaders, but we the ordinary people will be next on their hit list. That’s what power-hungry liberal elites who are seeking ultimate power do. Communists too.

    • “Better to have a figurative battle in Congress than violence in the streets.”

      Unless and until your former ‘friends’ (I have them too), will agree to sit with you and have the same discussions we have here on TNR (one of the few places left to do so), I’m afraid the two prospects (figurative battles in Congress or violence in the streets) aren’t mutually exclusive. I can only hope reasonable minds prevail (thoroughly investigating the election)… while preparing for the eventuality that they don’t.

    • Every year, I get a “year end” message from a friend, who is a former math professor at NYU and now a consultant to intelligence agencies.

      This year, my wife read it, and could not believe it.

      There were the usual family issues, but interwoven were his anti-Trump mantras, about as vehement as possible.

      Maybe he overdosed on NYT and WaPo, or whatever, and actually believed the slanted reporting, or the NON-reporting.

  3. This comment line has turned into an unrelenting pedantic debate club,
    rather than commenting on personal beliefs about current events
    and political/government maneuvers.
    Passions have overwhelmed discusion and comment

    • Mr. Richmond, it is precisely our personal beliefs and passions that provide all of us the opportunity to read and comment on this forum, …or not. I can only hope the passion is unrelenting, as is, apparently, the personal beliefs and passions of others who would rather we not express our views. For without our belief and passion in liberty and freedom, what else have we?

      • Fabulous Jay! This is what it’s all about so write and read on!

        Thank you Guy for your petition – can’t wait to see where it leads! Wake up people – this is the last ride to make it right – WWGOWGA!

    • Pedantic! Now you’ve done it – them’s fightin words lol.

      Seriously? Adding voice to ongoing attempts to censor TNR comment section which the moderator(s) have thankfully rejected while removing comments which do not reflect TNR values – should be sufficient if that was ever really the ‘problem’. So complaints not about “fighting” but about voices, opinions, open discussion and debate – got it.

      Oh my, sounds like Constitutionally protected right to free speach alive and well in our tiny state represented by a comment section of one – To be a fly on the wall of Catamount Tavern in Ethan Allens day!
      TNR, writers and reporters do yeomans work and deserve a Pulitzer 😀

    • I find the comments presented in the TNR articles by concerned individuals that is desirous of keeping some similarity of freedom in this country to comment on their beliefs, knowledge, concerns from many angles an resource not found elsewhere highly educational. Your put down comment is short typical of Liberals. Amazing there’s no vulgarity as most Liberals do because they can’t offer substance, brainwashed sheeple.

      But anyhow welcome to the forum. Think positive.

      I’ve noted there are many commenters that reside in many parts of the country and have many differentiating information and thoughts about their locals, enlightening. What is your expertise?

      The three goons in Congress from VT (supposedly representing VT) are a human farce. They are elected by Flatlanders that moved to the state and overtook the natives and forced their previous state(s) politics onto us. You my not know of Fred Tuttle an old tome VT farmer.. He opposed Leaky Leahy and almost won. I wish Fred was cloned to appear again and oppose anyone of the three clowns.

      I met Fred at the White River Junction VA Med Ctr. The people there really liked an appreciated him. Reading the comments, indicates freedom of thought is alive and well. Keep it up commentators. I do observe Liberal verbalization including the liberal media sources trying to learn something of their thinking. Haven’t much, mostly all negative, controlling, greed, power and government dictatorship.

      This pandemic “crises” is an indication of this.

  4. What is needed is a forensic examination of each ballot in the six swing states by an INDEPENDENT PARTY

    The Democrats and Republicans, etc., can watch, but they are not allowed to touch a ballot

    After all ballots are properly classified, only the LEGAL ones will be counted.

    Who gets most of the legal ones wins.

    ELECTORS will be selected by only the legislators, not the Governor, not the Secretary of State, in accordance with the State Constitution and US Constitution.

    • The Ballot audit, done according to law will cover this issue.

      The other possibility here is to bring Justices of the Peace in (whose prescribed duty, by law is Ballot handling and counting)
      , from other states. This is not complicated, unless the ones who have an axe to grind, make it so.

  5. *Libeled* a traitor for standing for our nation, freedom and liberty an honor and the newest Democrat talking point – to label all conservative patriots most specifically Trump supporters as treasonous for halting the theft of our election.
    Following evidence of fraud in the larger Democrat-machine cities in crucial swing states aka The Steal – like a pervasive and parasitic pestilence they’re everywhere. Slamming those who object to ongoing wholesale fraudulence complete with video evidence of polling station windows covered and hidden ballots secretly counted in the dead of night we’re told not to believe our lying eyes. Then labeled as the seditionists and ‘threat to our democracy’. Uh huh.

    Donald Trump won the biggest landslide in election history. Stay tuned! 😀

    • Treason and “destroying” Democracy is what Republicans do, according to Dem/Progs and the US Media.

      Socialist, virtue-signaling and ballot-box-stuffing is what Dem/Progs do, using COVID and early morning hours as covers, according to Republicans.

      The hand-maiden, US Media are helping out by chiming in against Trump, the “evil-doing devil”, and are heralding the inevitable coming of Biden-in-the-Basement, as the one.

      Dem/Progs are desperately trying to CONTOL THE MESSAGE, but the cat is out of the bag.

      It will be shown in a few days, with all the US people and the whole world watching, the six swing states have been drowning themselves in Dem/Prog-executed fraud, that they are separately trying to cover up, and erase by shredding.

      Stay tuned.

  6. With all due respect Mr. Page, the only crisis it seems we are facing is the inability of President Trump to accept the fact that he lost the election and will, according to our Constitution, have to relinquish power.
    Election results have been certified and electors appointed in ever state according to the law.
    Court challenges, including those brought before Trump appointed judges, have found no evidence of improprieties and Trump’s own Attorney General William Barr has found no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the results of the elections.
    The good news is that we live in a country where the rule of law matters and people can petition and choose their leaders. Donald Trump as well had the right to challenge the results of the election in courts and recounts. He also has the right to run again in 2024. He does not have the right to ignore our Constitution or overturn the election simply because he did not win.

    • I would answer with this treatise by Publius Huldah

      Article IV, §4, US Constitution REQUIRES Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President to Stop the Steal!

      1. The Supreme Court’s Dereliction of Duty

      The Pennsylvania Lawsuit

      As pointed out in the interview [and previously here], Art. I, §4, cl. 1, US Constitution, delegates to state and federal legislatures alone the power to make the laws addressing the “times, places and manner” of conducting federal elections. In addition, Art. II, §1, cl. 2 provides that the State Legislatures are to decide how the Presidential Electors for their State are to be appointed.

      But in Pennsylvania (and other States), Judges and State Executive Branch officials changed the laws made by their State Legislature in order to permit fraud of such a massive scale as would enable the theft of the election for the Biden/Harris ticket. Accordingly, during late September, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit challenging the unconstitutional changes to the State election laws. They lost in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and asked the US Supreme Court to review it.

      But the Supreme Court dragged its feet. So on October 28, Justice Alito (who is the “go-to” Justice for the US Circuit in which Pennsylvania is located), issued a statement [link] where he identified violations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1 and Art. II, §1, cl. 2 as an issue of “national importance” which “calls out for review” by the Supreme Court; and that the Court should decide this issue BEFORE the election. He warned that the Supreme Court’s inaction on the “important constitutional issue” raised in the lawsuit has created conditions that could lead to “serious post-election problems.”

      Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined Justice Alito in his Statement – but nobody else.

      The Supreme Court still hasn’t announced whether they will review the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They set this case for conference (among themselves) on January 8 [link] – which is two days after Congress meets to count the votes.

      The Texas Lawsuit

      The Supreme Court’s handling of the Texas lawsuit was equally egregious. The Texas case alleged that using COVID-19 as an excuse, state government officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin usurped their State Legislature’s authority and unconstitutionally revised their State’s election statutes. These changes made massive election fraud possible. The Complaint sets forth compelling facts alleging the massive and coordinated fraud used to steal the November 3 election.

      But the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, claiming that Texas “lacked standing” to bring the action. They were dead wrong. Here’s why:

      Article IV, §4, US Constitution, says:

      “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

      The essence of a “Republic” is that power is exercised by Representatives elected by The People.1 Accordingly, the violations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1 and Art. II, §1, cl. 2 – which made the massive election fraud possible – strike at the heart of our Constitutional Republic.

      Obviously, when an election is stolen by corrupt politicians and political parties – with the connivance of Judges and State election officials – the Right of The People to choose their Representatives is taken away from them.

      And this is why the State of Texas has “standing” to bring the lawsuit: Art. IV, §4, is for the benefit of the States who comprise this Union. The States created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution. The Supreme Court is merely the “creature” of that Constitution; and they may not lawfully act in contravention of the Document under which they hold their existence.

      The US Supreme Court is required to act so as to preserve the Republican Form of Government for Texas and all other States. They shirked their Duty. Shame on the Supreme Court!

      2. Attorney General William Barr’s Dereliction of Duty

      Article IV, §4 also imposes on the US Attorney General – as part of the Executive Branch of the federal government – the Duty “to guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

      Accordingly, the Attorney General has the Duty to prosecute persons engaged in federal election fraud; and he has the Duty to file civil actions addressing the election fraud – such as suggested by constitutional litigators William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney in their Christmas Eve article here.

      But not only did Barr not lift a finger to fight the fraud – he denied there was any fraud. He too shirked his constitutional Duty. Shame on William Barr!

      3. Will Congress also shirk their Constitutional Duty?

      Article IV, §4 also imposes on Congress the Duty to guarantee to the States a Republican Form of Government.

      Section 3 of the 20th Amendment imposes on Congress the additional Duty of determining whether the President Elect and Vice President Elect have “qualified” for office [respecting that, this short post will help you].

      Congress has the ability to perform its sacred Duty under Art. IV, §4, by disqualifying Biden and Harris on the bases that their election was procured by changes to State election laws made in violation of Art. I, §4, cl. 1 and Art. II, §1, cl. 2, which made possible the brazen fraud which resulted in the theft of the election for Biden and Harris.

      Kamala Harris should be disqualified on the additional ground that she is not a “natural born citizen” as required by Art. II, §1, cl. 5 and the 12th Amendment [link].

      But shockingly, it appears that some Republicans in Congress intend to go along with the fraud, and will use as an excuse the silly claim that presidential elections are up to the States and Congress shouldn’t bully the States!

      But that would constitute an aiding and abetting of election fraud, and a shirking of Constitutional Duties. Congress! Do not strip The American People of their right to honest federal elections!

      4. The Fraudulent Election is an Act of War against the People of the United States

      This was not just another election. This was a planned and coordinated attack on the People of the United States. If we don’t defeat the fraud, the People of the United States will have been stripped of their sovereign power to choose their own Representatives. 2

      This is an Insurrection against the sovereign power of WE THE PEOPLE. Traitors within our local, state, and federal governments have conspired with one another – and apparently foreign agents – to take our sovereign power away from us. And cowards are going along with it.

      5. President Trump has constitutional and statutory authority to carry out the Duty imposed on him by Art. IV, §4

      If, when it meets on January 6, Congress too shirks its constitutional Duty to guarantee honest federal elections and refuses to disqualify Biden & Harris; then the President is our last hope (within the purview of the Constitution). 3 Not only does Art. IV, §4 impose this duty on the President; he is also bound by his Oath of Office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art. II, §1, last clause); and, by Art. II, §3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. These three provisions impose upon him the Duty to act so as to preserve the Federal Constitutional Republic created by our Constitution of 1787.

      And he has the constitutional and statutory authority to carry out his Duty:

      Call up the Militia!

      Article I, §8, cl. 15 authorizes Congress

      …“to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” [italics added]

      Congress “provided for” calling forth the Militia by delegating to the President the authority to use his own judgment respecting whether to send the Militia into any State:

      ♦To enforce the Laws of the United States [10 USC §252];

      ♦To suppress uprisings which deprive the people of the rights, privileges and immunities, and protections recognized in the Constitution and secured by Law, and the State government isn’t protecting those rights [10 USC §253]; and

      ♦To suppress uprisings which oppose or obstruct the execution of the laws of the United States or impede the course of justice under those laws [10 USC §253].

      So the Militia may be called forth:

      ♦To enforce Art. I, §4, cl.1 (which requires that only state and federal Legislatures may make laws respecting the times, places and manner of holding federal elections);

      ♦To enforce Art. II, §1, cl.2 (which provides that the State Legislatures are to decide how the Presidential Electors for their State are to be appointed);

      ♦To enforce Art. IV, §4 (which requires the United States to guarantee to the States a Republican Form of Government); and

      ♦To suppress the Insurrection which is right now going on in our Country.

      A Brief History of the Militia

      The term, “Militia”, refers to the armed and trained male Citizens. The Militia Act of 1792 provided for the arming and training of these male Citizens [link]. Our Framers did not want a standing professional Army – that’s why appropriations for the regular Army were limited to two years (Art. I, §8, cl. 12). Enforcement of federal laws, suppression of Insurrections, and much of the national defense were to be the responsibility of the Militia. When the federal gov’t needs to enforce its laws, it is to call forth the Militia – the armed and trained Citizens – to do the enforcing! During the Washington Administration, the federal gov’t called forth the Militia to enforce the federal excise tax on whiskey. Federal law enforcement is thus the province of the Citizens – the Militia! 4

      But with the Dick Act of 1903, the organized Militia was converted into the National Guard – which is an adjunct of the federal military. And with 10 USC § 246, Congress redefined “Militia” to consist of two classes:

      “(b) The classes of the militia are—

      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

      Earlier this year, in response to the violent Insurrections in the cities, Edwin Vieira, JD., Ph.D. (our Country’s foremost authority on the Militia) showed here how President Trump has the authority to send the Militia into the cities to suppress the Insurrections. But as discussed here [at endnote 11], President Trump’s two previous Secretaries of Defense apparently indicated that they would not obey orders to send the National Guard into the cities. Will Chris Miller, the present acting Secretary of Defense, be any better?

      But if President Trump calls up “the unorganized militia” – which remains in existence as recognized by 10 USC §246 and which has his back – to enforce Art. I, §4, cl.1; Art. II, §1, cl.2 and Art. IV, §4 – he doesn’t need the cooperation of any deep state Secretaries of Defense.

      6. Calling up the Militia is not equivalent to imposing “martial law”!

      I implore Patriots to become precise in your use of terminology. Calling up the Militia for the purposes at Art. I, §8, cl. 15 is not “imposing martial law” [and it’s not “Marshall law”]! Martial Law is typically imposed during war time when invading military forces disband civilian governments [including the courts] in the occupied country and replace the civilian government with direct military control of civilian populations.

      7. What is “the rule of law”?

      The “rule of law” is a term which politicians and Attorneys General, who have no idea what it means, love to sling around: In his recent address to students at Hillsdale College, former Attorney General Barr said the “rule of law” means “treating everyone the same”. That’s not even close.

      Law comes from a higher source than the civil authorities. The “Rule of Law” prevails when the civil authorities obey that higher Law – be it God’s Law or our Constitution. The Bible shows that Kings governed justly only when they governed in accordance with the Law of God. In our Country, the civil authorities govern justly only when they obey our Constitution. See: Lex, Rex, by Rev. Samuel Rutherford (1644) and here under the subheading, “1. The Civil Authorities are under the Law.”

      8. This isn’t about Trump – it’s about defending our Constitutional Republic from enemy attack

      It doesn’t matter what you or I think of President Trump: there is much to criticize about his policies. This fight is about whether our Republican Form of Government, with honest & verifiable elections, is to be restored; or whether our Right to choose our Representatives is to be stripped from us forever.


      1 Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison) [link]: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, … *** … The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; …”

      2 “…The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” Federalist No. 22, last para (A. Hamilton). This is what we will lose if Congress and the President permit the cheats and subversives to get away with the election fraud.

      3 If Congress and the President both shirk their Constitutional duties and “betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense …” Federalist No. 28 (A. Hamilton). Much blood will be on the hands of those who acquiesced in the fraud.


      • Congratulations!
        That is a great summary of what is at stake.

        If Dem/Progs get away with this THIS time, they will use it as a basis for the NEXT time.

        The problem is, about 30 years of psycho-babble in Public schools have brainwashed several generations to think it is ok to burn the flag, to defund the police, to call themselves BLM, or The Infada, or whatever, and then go rioting, burning, stealing, and worse.

        The whole world will be watching the US Congress.

        I cannot understand why any member would oppose baring frauds, so all will be known.

        The more fraud is bared, the greater the actions required to correct it.

        Are they afraid to correct it?
        Are they not up to the job?
        What ARE you doing in Congress?

        This is like a pilot being a hero trying to land a plane in deep trouble.

        • Mr Freitag is no different than any RINO I have ever followed. If the debate does not go their way they will start by trying to change the direction of conversation, or to bring in some points that have little to do with the subject. Or justify outcomes that are not adjudicated because they do not want to face the music down the road. Voter fraud issues, fully aired and discussed will result in a high “Body Count” and Freitag and others do not want to be in that fix; I think they must know that sooner or later there will be “bodies”.

          • Below Rino level – at least they vote R lol…claims Indy status however Democrat stain is clearly dyed into the fur.

    • Some cheese with that whine much lol. FYI: In recent times 2000, 2001 and 2004 election results were challenged – twice by Dems and once by GWB. May I suggest you do a little research sir. Reciting the same, tired Democrat talking points got old a long time ago – there are many new revelations which shed light on new evidence which you predictably choose to ignore.

      And – per constitutional mandate states are not supposed to certify elections until all legal challenges have been resolved which would have saved a lot of time for future problems from litigation.

      We are not a pure democracy which = mob rule but a ‘nation of laws not of men’ essence thereof embedded in our Constitutional Republic and founding document our Constitution. Tho you refer to this frequently however seems to escape you whenever an inconvenient truth emerges lol.

      And are you aware that Thomas Jefferson was elected by a procedural challenge – the very same one which could very well be used by our wonderful potus DJT – look it up.

      Our constitution contains a few remedial options for the type of abject fraud and typical chicanery employed by Democrat Party and ever-creepy Brown Shirted followers – using constitutionally mandated challenges should never be a problem for those who truly love our country.

      • Correction: In this century alone Potus challenges were Bush v Gore 2001, Bush again in 2005 and Donald J Trump 2017 – all demanded by Dem challengers w 2001 amidst controversy not decided until 12/13/2000 and following Scotus challenge.

    • Nice try. This has nothing to do with the Constitution. Trump & I both have the right to question the results of this particular election and the media, celebrities, democrats and twitter haters can try all they want to shame us, but merely display their own ignorance.
      This election was extraordinary in so many ways that a thorough review is in order. Why? Because the voting mechanism was changed dramatically due to COVID. Procedures were changed by the states on the fly.
      It has been widely reported that the rejection rates of mail-in ballots have dropped dramatically in the battleground states. That alone is grounds for a bipartisan look-back. What are the democrats afraid of ?

    • Speaking of ” inability to accept the fact that [s]he lost the election”… It’s kinda like the democrats conjuring up the Russia collusion hoax in 2016, wasting 3 years with the Mueller investigation and using the FBI and DOJ to create bogus perjury traps for folks like General Flynn, Papadopoulos, misrepresent FISA requests, and then, without evidence, create the faux Ukrainian impeachment fiasco, all while ignoring that the Biden Family was in business with the Ukrainians and Chinese. And when all that failed, the democrats decided to use the Wu Flu as an excuse for the ‘mail-in’ balloting fiasco. Yes, I know. Conspiracy theories. I guess it takes one to know one.

      BTW, Attorney General William Barr DIDN’T say “he found no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the results of the elections”. What he said more than a month ago was “…to date we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” That the election results were ‘certified’ since then means only that the fox is counting the chickens.

      And since then we’ve seen nothing but obstruction by Federal judges, like Georgia’s Leslie Gardner, who effectively blocked challenges to voter eligibility in two Georgia counties ahead of Tuesday’s Senate runoff.

      And, oh, did I forget to mention that Judge Gardner is none other than Stacey Abrams sister. You know, the same Stacy Abrams who claimed she had the Georgia governor’s race ‘stollen’ from her, the same Stacy Abrams that’s ramrodding the democrat get out-the-vote run-off campaign in Georgia. Have you ever heard of recusing yourself when there’s a conflict of interest? Apparently not.

      Again Mr. Freitag, you can choose to ignore that the democrats are hypocrites when it comes to accepting election results, and ignore that there actually IS evidence of voter fraud – in fact, mountains of it. Nonetheless, we continue to see that your dishonesty is pathological. It’s little wonder most TNR readers are skeptical, not so much of other voters, but of the vote counters…. and people like you.

      • Jay,

        Yours is great, clear-headed commentary.

        What we have seen can only be called a pre-meditated COUP D’ ETAT, an illegal/unconstitutional grasping for more POWER..

        They must not be allowed to get away with it for the good or the NATION.

        Thank you.

        • I’m afraid they have gotten away with it, Willem.

          The only alternatives available now, the powers listed in the1807 Insurrection Act, for example, are too extreme for my sensibilities, at least for now. At least until they come marching up my driveway to take my property or arrest me for the possibility of being infected by some recent disease or a virus yet to be conjured up by China and World Economic Forum folks.

          When that time comes, I will likely follow the now infamous stand made by Charlton Heston in 2008. Watch it!


      • Well thank goodness unlike Mr. Page’s experience, at least I have not yet been called a “traitor” just pathologically dishonest by Mr. Eshelman. Likewise I am glad no one is suggesting I be shot like Attorney Lin Wood recommended should happen to Vice President Pence for his unwillingness to participate in trying to single-handle determine who can be recognized as electors.

        A good test if we are acting on principle or as simply partisan reactions, is to substituting the opposing politician and honestly think about how we would be reacting to them doing the same thing. A case in point is President Trump’s recent attempt, captured on tape, to try to convince the Georgia Secretary of State to find enough votes to have him win the Georgia election. Imagine our reaction if Joe Biden had made such a phone call to a state where he lost.

        Responding to an earlier article I suggested that President-elect Biden follow-up on a recommendation made in the publication “The Hill” to have a bi-partisan commission to review and suggest improvements to our election system. I have also advocated and will continue to do so for single member districts in the Vermont House and Senate as has been proposed by former minority leader Don Turner. Both are positive actions that have the potential to restore trust and improve our system of government. However, at the same time I agree with the Republican leaders, like former U.S. House Republican Speaker Paul Ryan who today called further actions trying to negate the results of the election ” anti democratic and anti conservative”.
        Again, just another point of view that while you do not have to agree with, but may or may not be worth your consideration.

        • There you go again. I never said anything about Lin Wood or VP Pence, or Trump’s recent phone call. And, to date, neither did anyone else in this commentary. But you, apparently, remain unable to address my citation of the hypocrisy inherent in the Democrat’s 2016-2020 behavior, the FBI and DOJ corrupt FISA conduct, Biden family business dealings with Ukraine and China, or the Judge Abrams Gardner conflict of interest. Your inability to stay on subject is definitive pathological behavior. Look it up.

          Riddle me this: If it’s reasonable to recommend “a bi-partisan commission …review and suggest improvements to our election system”, why do you, and certain courts, legislators and elected officials, obstruct similar investigations into the hundreds of process issues submitted by sworn testimony surrounding the recent November election? If you ignore the problems with the November election, how can you reasonably investigate future elections? Answer: You can’t.

          • Mr. Eshelman,

            No one has ignored the claims of fraud in the November election. In fact there have been nearly 60 cases brought and decided on the issue in the time allowed by law to contest elections. There have also been recounts. All this is part of our system and is something I have been supportive of.

            However, as Trump appointed and Federalist Society member Federal Appeal Judge Stephanos Bidas said in his ruling dismissing one of these cases said, “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here”.

            While these election results have been repeatedly tested in court and found to be valid and certified. There will be one more attempt by those in Congress to challenge the results and this is their right as well. It will, like other efforts fail, with both Republicans and Democrats voting in favor of accepting the state determined results and the electors from the states and President Trump will leave office on the 20th as prescribed in the Constitution. This is how our rule of law works.

            If there is a bipartisan way to improve our current process that may give more confidence to voters in the integrity of our system , I am all in favor of exploring the possibilities. In the meantime, those who evidence show may have committed voter fraud, like a couple of people in Pa. who were found to cast votes for their dead parents, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

          • Yes, there have been at least 59 cases brought so far, some appealed several times, and I’m not aware of any case that has been litigated in court under adversarial discovery and cross-examination to date. The cases have been summarily dismissed by judges for a variety of reasons including but not limited to, lack of standing, a statute of limitations (prescriptive period limitations), and various citations that sworn complaint affidavits demonstrated a ‘lack of evidence’, not to mention various other ‘procedural errors’.

            That there were recounts is another false dichotomy. Recounting stuffed ballots gives only a recount of stuffed ballots. Why won’t the courts allow a forensic audit of voting machines and ballot chain-of-custody?

            Indeed, the courts have, so far, refused to uphold their constitutional duties – especially in the egregious SCOTUS case of Texas v. ‘the swing states’, and there’s little any of us who feel offended by this can do about it. You get no argument from me on that count. Especially when a Federal Judge in Georgia, Stacy Abrams’ sister no less, refuses to recuse herself.

            But again, Mr. Freitag, your pathology remains true to form. We know the established courts have ruled as they have. But you continue to lobby for consensus while avoiding the hypocrisy of your position. The Democrats challenged every presidential election won by a Republican over the last 20 years. They spent 4 years and millions of dollars trying to disenfranchise Trump on the Russia Collusion Hoax. The FBI and DOJ used false allegations to attain FISA warrants. The Democrats impeached Trump on the basis of the thinnest of evidence (nothing to the extent of that presented to courts over election fraud), even while the Bidens had business dealings in China and the Ukraine.

            It’s time for you to walk a mile in our moccasins, and I hope you enjoy every step.

        • A whole lot of people are following Lin Woods Twitter now aren’t they?
          Funny how that worked eh?

          • There’s nothing ‘funny’ about Lin Wood’s actions, Ms. Stone, or his ‘following’. Please keep in mind that knowing when to argue a point of view is one thing. Knowing how to argue it is another. Your citation serves little purpose, other than to give the likes of Mr. Freitag fuel for his equally myopic point of view. I suggest we focus more on reason than on rebellion… on honey, not vinegar.

          • Fully agree Laura and reject Mr Eshelmans continued attempts to dismiss points of view he disagrees with by steering conversation to own preferred sources of info while slamming others.

            Lin Wood is a hero imho however time will tell. He is currently giving previews of coming attractions which qualify as MOABs – and precictively draws scorn from the effete members of conservative movement

          • For the record, ‘Stardust’, you misunderstood my criticism of Ms. Stone’s remark and, while I’m not sure what your point is, there’s no need to clarify further on my account. I just wanted to set the record straight.

          • There’s nothing to miss in your response ‘Jay Eshelman’ which was quite clear and not isolated. Nor do you know whether point was missed. For the record I disagree with each sentence as well as the tenor.

            Defense rests.

        • I for one do not need to be ordered to use your preferred litmus and how to apply – which you fail to follow yourself – whats new. And refuse to follow rules out of deeply dishonest Democrat playbook.

          Accusation of Trump supposed attempt to influence incorrigably corrupt Georgia SOS another bald lie and patently ridiculous ploy to frame Trump as the criminal your ilk wish he was.

          Stated facts and listed the different categories of votes which are invalidated by Georgia law requesting that Raffensburger return a number of votes Trump received to the official count. That is all – but a reminder of why your perniciously diseased activity is rejected by conservative patriots.

          • This back and forth put downs is pure crap and space wasting. It degrades the comment section. If nothing positive can be said, say nothing. That’s what Bruce Parker wrote. Of 43 comments, perhaps 4-5 were put downs of others. Don’t be thin skinned.

            This article has produced so many great informational writings based on knowledgeable research, I think the best. Any contradiction comment to anyone should be analyzed to one’s mentality. Take it or leave it. It’s to whomever’s world. Laura Stone has had many great writings. Encompass that into the her comment you don’t like and the overall picture is very conservative. I’m also a NH resident. Owned land in VT since 1953 so have some say and concerned about VT being born, schooled and AF Vet.

            Cool it.

          • Setting the record straight: I had never complained about a single comment or commenter and handled offending comments myself. Until the complainers started campaign then reached out to Bruce with concerns and he gave me a more fleshed out version of the skinny on comment standards. Now appears was never about crimes listed but some don’t like certain comments or ppl – I did not criticize Lauras comment – take a deep breath pls.

            Additionally different commenters have in past and still are attempting to make own rules for TNR comment section and toss 1A in the trash by claiming commenters:
            need to run for office, use first and last birth name, use preferable source links and not critique their friends. Oh – and our comments are worthless. To that you add own qualifiers – you’re a veteran, own land in VT and lived there since ’53. We have the constitutionally protected right bc we are citizens not subjects period.

            Aforementioned comment clear attempt to censor *my* comments alone and not new – also slammed me for critiquing your friend – Kevin Hoyt as John Klar was attacked by multiple supporters many times – not a peep. Frequent longwinded heated back and forth debates continue – to which you say nothing. TNR, commenters and authors who post against Democrats and their misdeeds have been slammed – nothing. And as a lightening rod – it’s an honor sir.

            The difference Pre-warning and Post warning is debates are largely on topic, civil and personal attackers have seemingly run out of steam, from what I can see. And moderator -Mr. Parker- did not state via paraphrase “if you have nothing good to say say nothing”:
            — “The proper answer to speech we don’t like is counter-speech — i.e., more speech.”
            — “TNR readers: Keep it civil. Please be respectful of others and stay on topic using brief comments. Some of you are getting off topic and attacking each other. Please use the comments section to post on-topic comments, and please consider using your email for personal disputes. Thanks.”
            You yourself make long and off-topic comments in your own back-and-forths. And may I suggest taking own advice: If you have nothing good to say say nothing, don’t be thin-skinned, take comments or leave them.

  7. What else is new? What my neighbors call me is one thing. How my government representatives treat me, without saying anything, is another.

    It’s critical to point out, again, that the complexity of Vermont’s governmental bureaucracy is intentional – as are most governmental bureaucracies. After all, the average person isn’t an attorney, and has little time to consider, let alone understand, the nuances of the laws that govern them. This is, perhaps, why most governments deteriorate into totalitarianism, then anarchy – because the citizenry becomes complacent and accepting of the seemingly benign benefits gifted to them by their representatives (wolves in sheep’s clothing all).

    As George Bernard Shaw said: “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”

    But make no mistake: pay attention now by choice or pay attention later by force. If you don’t elect representation that reflects the axiom; ‘that government is best that governs least’, you will get the tyranny to which you have turned your blind eye.

  8. Guy,

    Getting labelled a traitor for digging up facts about fraud is a favorite past-time of certain people.

    If they would do a lot of googling, they would get the facts that are not covered by the US media.

    My brother-in-law in Norway says almost nothing is written about the frauds in the EU Media.

    The Democrat Party, as a matter of strategy, switched this election from Trump to Biden, as shown by the illegal procedures in
    Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    Secretaries of State illegally changed election rules without getting legal authorization from their Legislatures in all these states, as required by the Constitutions of these states.

    The resulting ballot counts are tainted, and should not have been certified


    Bobby Piton is a managing partner of Pre-Active Investments, LLC and an investment advisor representative of Total Clarity Wealth Management.

    Piton Analysis of 9,008,753 Records

    By analyzing the state-election data, registered-voter-list data, and matching them up with population data, Social Security data, IRS taxpayer data, and state taxpayer data, he prepared a “1000 Top Last Names” list for voting age people in Pennsylvania, hereafter called “THE LIST”.

    He found:

    1) Votes cast by people on “THE LIST” were 695,430 more, than there were people with those names on “THE LIST”

    These were not people, but Phantom ballots arriving/manufactured in PA, as if they were ETs arriving in UFOs, and those ETs were called Smith, Williams, Johnson, Jackson, etc.
    Their last names just happen to be the most common last names in Pennsylvania, etc. Clever indeed!!

    “1000 Top Last Names”

    Here are the voting counts of the top-four, most-frequent names:

    PA had 14,776 more voters called Smith, than voting-age people on THE LIST
    PA had 19,591 more voters called Williams, than on THE LIST
    PA had 30,830 more voters called Johnson, than on THE LIST
    PA had 11,656 more voters called Jackson, than on THE LIST

    Adding up to 695,430 more votes for 1000 top last names.

    2) He found:

    There are 521,879 people with unique last names in Pennsylvania, of which there are 245,033 people with last names belonging to only 1 person! These 245,033 people have no parents, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, and cousins. Unique indeed!!

Comments are closed.