Rumors about Trump’s talk tomorrow night
A lot of rumors are swirling around about the talk Trump is scheduled to give to the nation tomorrow night at 9 PM Eastern Time. They all seem to involve some sort of statement about fraud – or at least “rigging” in terms of foreign influence – in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In a way it’s old news, but Trump promises something new. You can see some of the rumors at Ace’s (see this), but what Trump has actually said so far is this:
Speaking in the Oval Office two days ahead of the planned address, Trump affirmed the speech would focus on elections and a “couple of other things.” …
… Trump framed the elections portion of his Thursday speech as the centerpiece. Two sources said he is expected to focus on voting machine security and alleged efforts by foreign nations to influence elections.
“It’s really, really big news, and our country has to shape up,” Trump said during a meeting with Iraq’s prime minister.
“It doesn’t get bigger, because without free and fair elections, you don’t have a country,” the president added. “We’ll be discussing other things too, but it’s going to be a very big announcement.”
It could be about the SAVE Act. It could be about nearly anything related to elections. But I am convinced that, whatever he says – for example, if he produced what ordinarily would be considered ironclad evidence of fraud in previous elections – at least half the nation would not believe it. They don’t believe anything he says or anything his confederates say. They believe that everything and anything that comes from the GOP is fabricated, fake, false.
NOTE: Speaking of which, Chuck Grassley writes on X that he has evidence about prosecutor Jack Smith:
I received records frm DOJ confirming Jack Smith’s investigative team reviewed the contents of text msgs sent by 44 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Im 1 of the 44
Im alerting my colleagues who were impacted and will release the records w Sen Johnson so American ppl can see the evidence.
Most of the responses on X are from angry people saying they’re tired of this sort of thing without any prosecutions of high-up perpetrators such as Smith.
Maybe his speech is to get Thune to do something useful on The Save America Act. The Save America Act mereley stipulates that you must have proof of citizenship to register and a photo ID to vote.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elissa-slotkin-says-save-america-act-would-make-hard-democrat-win-elections
Wherein Elissa Slotkin Michigan Senator (D) says: SAVE America Act would make it ‘hard for any Democrat’ to win an election.
Well, what do you know.
You’re right, half of them won’t believe it, evidence or no.
2 true statements in your piece:
1, as Kate says 50% of the population will not believe anything he says, or even if he shows solid evidence.
2, I’m one of those angry ones who believes none of the guilty are ever perp walked, so why bother?
I want a presidential proclamation declaring states with all mail balloting to be illegitimate and takeover such states to force fair elections. Also declare DSA members ineligible for positions of public trust and force them to resign forthwith.
We have one of the little bastards running in the upcoming primary that says he can work with other “demsoc”.
We should keep in mind that some of these breathless predictions about Trump revealing fraud and crime and so on might be coming from Democrats and Dem leaning commentators.
Remember the televised interview with Bill Clinton about Monica Lewinsky 30 years ago (if you’re old enough, that is)? There were all kinds of rumors about how Clinton had lost his temper, embarrassed himself, revealed this or that, and when it came it was predictably anti-climactic. Probably the worst of it was his infamous ‘it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is’ line.
Afterward the usual Dem mouthpieces tried to blame Ken Starr for the rumors before hand, but that never made any sense. What would be the point?
No, those wild salacious (sometimes literally salacious) rumors were circulated by the Dems to make the actual interview seem like a nothingburger.
We may be seeing that same tactic now. Not saying it for sure, but keep the possibility in mind.
“…couple of other things….”
Whatever those might be, it seems that Vance has, officially, gone down the rabbit hole…(unless it’s a tactical attempt to defend against Trump’s woke-right flank):
“JD Vance alleges secret Israeli campaign to derail Trump Iran deal;
“JD Vance alleges Israeli government elements funded a campaign attacking him over Iran talks, while also claiming Jeffrey Epstein had Israeli intelligence ties.”—
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/430234
+ Bonus:
What are the odds of John Fetterman remaining a Democrat…?
“Fetterman says he’ll leave Democrats if party becomes officially ‘anti-Israel’”—
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/430251
I imagine many here will agree with this.
https://thefederalist.com/2026/07/16/after-birthplace-citizenship-case-the-conservative-legal-movement-needs-to-raise-its-standards/
From Mike’s linked Federalist article: “[…] apolitical, judicial umpire — merely calling balls and strikes, in Roberts’ famous framing. In the real world, however, the court (very much including the Roberts Court) is America’s unelected super-legislature, redrawing the strike zone however and whenever they please.”
Granted CJ Roberts said that years before the institution of the (still evolving, I hope!) ABS system, nevertheless, the mere existence of that system tells us just where Roberts’ notion comes up unhappily short. “Apolitical”, my ass.
All I know is that when anyone in public life of any flavor or politics or none at all announces that they will be “dropping a bomb” or some other significant revelation, it’s always a big nothingburger.
I’m just tired of it all. If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise shut up.
This one isn’t as bad as they usually are, but I don’t expect anything that’s both new and interesting.
Glenn Reynolds raises the possibility of Trump’s invoking the Guarantee Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, in which it says the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government. Trump could, for instance, send in election monitors to all suspect states to guarantee fair elections.
https://instapundit.substack.com/p/seizing-the-day
Paul Sperry on X.com has a very lengthy series of posts (8 pages, so maybe 30?) on tonight’s Trump speech on election integrity. https://x.com/paulsperry_
SIDEBAR: some at Instapundit hope Trump invokes the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution where the Federal government is charged with keeping a Republican form of government. In my searches, I was surprised to find out that a guarantee clause is common to contract law. Any war, at IP some favored Trump to do so. But others argued that there’s more investigative work needed to make such a Fed reform effort pass muster of Courts review.
I make the above SIDEBAR because, while only implicit, Sperry seems to fall into the last camp.
Trump, says Sperry, will explain that foreign actors have very much interfered with US elections. An unearthed document supports the claim that China actively interfered in 2020s election to help China.
Sorry also says that several “news” outlets like Reuters are pre-debunking these revelations with the usual counter-claims of “no evidence,” and “old news” and so forth — sounding like DNC talking points sold as news, and probably were PR releases from the Democrat Party!
I believe that whatever Trump says will require some “read between the lines” in part. More to come on this case. But I can never unsee the photos from the Georgia 2020 election fiasco, released online by Patrick Byrne showing a pallet of Georgia ballots shrink wrapped, with a cover document loudly declaring it was made in “Shanghai” China.
The old story goes that the fate of this possible evidence bouncing between DHS and the FBI (and others?), from the Whitehouse authorities to their respective bureaucratic head offices, until the evidence was disposed by pulping these printed paper forms on pallets.
Accordingly, Sperry says at least one of four supporting documents will be released to the public on Friday, as ordered by Trump.
PS One wag reasoned from the Guarantee Clause discussion on IP, you cannot have a democratically elected Republican government without voting integrity. Yet this easily comprehended fact goes ignored by the Courts?
@Kate:Trump’s invoking the Guarantee Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, in which it says the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government. Trump could, for instance, send in election monitors to all suspect states to guarantee fair elections.
I’d be very surprised if that went anywhere. All the states already have a republican form of government, even if there is cheating in their elections. There’s always been cheating this whole time, since the Guarantee Clause was written, and Reynolds is thinking this up just now. There’s nothing to do under the Guarantee Clause, if there were then people should have been doing it over the last two hundred years when there were crooked elections, at least in some cases.
Reynolds says that “Presumptively, however, votes must be counted honestly to qualify as republican government.” But no one died and made him God or appointed him “Keeper of the Definition of Republican Government”. He cites nothing in law, he’s just asserting this. I have to admire his candor in simply using the word “presumptively” instead of taking many more words to say “I have declared it so”. He’s operating in clickbait mode, not law professor mode.
There was a time when some states did not have a republican form of government, during Reconstruction, when Congress passed laws to put most of the former Confederacy under military government. The Guarantee Clause did nothing to prevent that.
Those states were no longer part of the Union thus that clause didn’t apply.
Copilot
Former Confederate states were gradually readmitted to the United States between 1868 and 1870, with local rule often restored later.
After the Civil War, the former Confederate states underwent Reconstruction, a process to restore their governments and representation in Congress. The readmission dates varied by state, reflecting compliance with federal requirements such as ratifying the 14th Amendment and establishing loyal state governments. Local rule, meaning the restoration of state authority over internal affairs, sometimes occurred years later.
Timeline of Readmission and Local Rule
South Carolina: Readmitted July 9, 1868; local rule reestablished November 28, 1876
Mississippi: Readmitted February 23, 1870; local rule restored 1875
Florida: Readmitted June 25, 1868; local rule restored 1877
Alabama: Readmitted July 13, 1868; local rule restored 1874
Georgia: Readmitted July 15, 1870; local rule restored 1871
Louisiana: Readmitted July 9, 1868; local rule restored 1877
Texas: Readmitted March 30, 1870; local rule restored 1874
Virginia: Readmitted January 26, 1870; local rule restored 1870
Arkansas: Readmitted June 22, 1868; local rule restored 1874
North Carolina: Readmitted July 4, 1868; local rule restored 1870
Tennessee: Tennessee was unique, as it was the first state readmitted on July 24, 1866, and local rule was largely restored immediately due to early ratification of Reconstruction requirements
Border states like Kentucky and Missouri were not part of the Confederacy in practice but had Confederate-aligned provisional governments; their readmission was not part of the formal Reconstruction process
Notes on Reconstruction
Readmission required ratification of the 14th Amendment, establishment of a loyal state government, and federal approval.
Local rule often lagged behind readmission due to political conflicts, federal military oversight, and resistance from former Confederates.
The process concluded by 1877, marking the end of Reconstruction and the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, which allowed full local governance
This timeline highlights the staggered nature of Reconstruction, showing that while states regained congressional representation in the late 1860s and early 1870s, the full restoration of local authority often took several additional years.
Sad Trumbone or Glenn Reynolds, who to believe when it comes to law?
A true conundrum. (not)
@Chases Eagles:Those states were no longer part of the Union thus that clause didn’t apply.
That would be very surprising to the Union government, which always maintained that states could not leave the Union… The Supreme Court ruled in 1868 that the Confederate states had never legally left the Union. That clause applied as much as it ever had.
There were elected state governments in place before the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 abolished them. Tennessee was able to evade being put under military government by having its elected government ratify the 13th and 14th Amendments and so was never included under those Acts.
The Supreme Court was full of shit on that. Washington was neither a state nor foreign territory.
Copilot
The Prize Cases (1863) — U.S. Supreme Court Decision
The Prize Cases (The Brig Amy Warwick; The Schooner Crenshaw; The Barque Hiawatha; The Schooner Brilliante, 67 U.S. 635 (1863)) were four related U.S. Supreme Court cases that upheld President Abraham Lincoln’s authority to blockade Southern ports during the American Civil War without a formal declaration of war
Background
After the secession of several states and the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861, Lincoln did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. Instead, he ordered a naval blockade of Confederate ports, which had major legal implications under international law. Under customary law, a nation does not blockade its own ports; it closes them. By doing so, Lincoln effectively treated the Confederacy as a belligerent rather than an insurrectionist
The blockade led to the capture of American and foreign ships attempting to run it or smuggle goods to the South. Merchants challenged the seizures in court, arguing that without a declared war, such captures were illegal and amounted to piracy
Legal Question
The Court was asked:
Did Lincoln act within his constitutional powers under Article II when he ordered the seizures absent a declaration of war?
Court’s Holding
In a unanimous decision, Justice Robert Cooper Grier (joined by Wayne, Swayne, Miller, and Davis) held that:
A state of actual war could exist without a formal declaration, both in civil and foreign wars
In a civil war, when the regular course of justice is interrupted by rebellion, the U.S. had the same rights as a nation at war with a foreign power
The President, as Commander-in-Chief, could institute a blockade and capture ships in blockaded ports, treating residents of occupied territory as enemies
The blockade was de facto and formally declared on April 27–30, 1861, giving neutrals notice and a 15-day grace period to leave
Significance
The Prize Cases:
Expanded presidential war powers during civil conflict.
Established that civil wars could be treated like foreign wars for legal purposes.
Affirmed the President’s authority to blockade and seize ships in occupied territory without congressional declaration of war.
Set a precedent for how the U.S. could respond to secessionist states as belligerents under international law
In short, the decision reinforced Lincoln’s ability to act decisively in the early stages of the Civil War, even before Congress formally declared war, and shaped how the U.S. would treat the Confederacy in legal and military terms.
NIkitas writes “…Reynolds is thinking this up just now”
That’s highly unlikely. First he’s a Con Law prof.
Second, like Con Law Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law, he’s a libertarian. And thus, thinking deeply, writing seriously about American liberty is their forte.
— TJ
As a recovering libertarian, Prof. Reynolds (for whom I have great respect) has also been known to indulge in another libertarian forte: naive wishful thinking. He himself admits to having made that mistake in the early days of the Internet, failing to allow for human nature.
Realistically, whatever the legal theory, Trump does not have enough political capital to invoke the Guarantee Clause and make it stick. That’s what matters.
People cook up various kinds of short cuts that in theory would let us sweep our opponents before us.
Constitutional conventions, the Guarantee Clause, a state of emergency, but none of them are practical.
Some would very likely backfire.
The only practical road forward is the road we’ve been following: grind out slow, steady wins against constant resistance and force changes over time. There will be reversals, setbacks, and it is unquestionably frustrating in the extreme. But it can work and has been working.
Compare where we are today with where we were on January 1 2015, waiting with dread for the Inevitable Jeb to lose to Hilary. Since then, we’e seen huge progress. Gun rights have advanced. Roe is off the books. A whole bunch of ‘inevitable’ trade deals scuppered. The power of the ‘mainstream’ media is a shadow of what it was a decade agone.
Remember when lawfare had forever defeated Trump?
Yes, it’s slow, and tiring, and frustrating…but there are no short cuts.
“The only practical road forward is the road we’ve been following: grind out slow, steady wins against constant resistance and force changes over time.”
Screw that! The rat f*** commies are moving too fast for that.
— Chases Eagles
Then you have a problem because there is no ‘fast option’. It’s the slow slog or nothing. All the magical fast approaches that are being thrown around are provinces of Unicornia. You do not have the political capital to use the Guarantee Clause. A constitutional convention would be a glorious opportunity for the GOPe to team up with their Dem partners to lock the status quo in place.
You simply can’t win fast.
Bauxites and the DSA Democrats working together?
‘Nconceivable.
HC68, neither the constitution nor rule of law are suicide pacts. I am not interested legal bullshit. I want to stop the commies no matter what. I want the gd commies dead. In my lifetime. Not a hundred years from now.
I abandoned an effort to build a workshop after spending $20k. My PCP abandoned an effort to build a house after $40k. We are not voting our way out of this.
I want this settled and if by civil war, better with FedGov in our hands than in theirs.
— Chases Eagles
You can want whatever you want. The relevant issue is what you can possibly have.
A civil war would be a catastrophe for everyone involved on a scale most people can’t imagine. No matter who won, it would be a disaster. Furthermore, there is no guarantee ‘our side’ would win. The right is not ideologically unified. If our side was seen as being in the legal wrong, some right wingers might go to the other side. In the first civil war, there were abolishionists fighting for the South and slave owners fighting for the North. The military would split in myriad ways, mostly unpredictable. Where are the nukes physically located? Some of each side would join the other for reasons of region of family.
Even if ‘our side’, however defined, more or less won, the compromises and unexpected twists of the whole thing would mean that our prize would other than we expected or hoped for. Foriegn powers would assuredly get involved, adding complications.
Now go read the accounts of the field hospitals from the ACW. Talk to survivors from Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Algeria, etc. Look at pictures of children burned, men blinded, limbs blown off. If it got really bad, food production and distribution could be disrupted, unleashing starvation and disease.
Pray for slow and steady.
Spare me the lecture. My brother was in Osijek, Croatia during their war against the Serbs and he was trapped in Bosnia during the siege of Sarajevo for weeks under sniper fire. Called and asked me to send him body armor. He got out to Italy, bought food and took it back to feed people.
Three great uncles in the ACW, two of whom were killed.
Father in the Tet offensive, 152 combat missions. DFC
Me at Boeing simulating submarine launched cruise missile attacks for the USAF.
Also I have a library of more than 1000 volumes on all things war. You want pictures, I’ve got pictures.
BTW my father crewed a B-36 (the last B-36) for Operation Redwing.
Wiki
“Operation Redwing was a United States series of 17 nuclear test detonations from May to July 1956. They were conducted at Bikini and Enewetak atolls by Joint Task Force 7 (JTF7).”
They flew into radioactive clouds to take air samples. It gave him cancer from which he died.
Since you asked, the Pacific submarine nukes are stored about 8 miles from here.
Give me liberty or give me death.
— Chases Eagles
Who controls them? Meaning who would have access and physical control of them in a civil war? What about the ICBMs? The bombers? Which faction would have access to them?
Which faction of ‘our side’ will be in command? Are you prepared to use lethal force to make sure it isn’t a Tuckerite or a Cornyn? What level of civilian casualties are prepared to accept? Is the goal control of the CONUS or a split off? What would be your defeat condition if the other side is winning?
Spare me.
Assuming Henry ever actually said that, it’s just the sort of emotional appeal that short circuits clear thought. Henry was disappointed by the outcome of the Revolution, he wanted an independent Virginia, he got the USA. Civil wars have a funny way of disappointing even the winners.
The fire eaters like Yancey and Ruffin in the ACW thought of themselves as fighting for liberty too. But they lost everything.
The chances of a new civil war ending well for anyone involved are low.
The chances for reeducation camps and worse being implemented after the DSA takes power, even temporarily, are historically speaking, very, very high.
But you know that HC68?
‘nconceivable.
So now John Cornyn is equated with Tucker Carlson? Or did you mean Candace Owen?
Lectures indeed. Civil wars are bloody and chaotic and don’t forget dirty bombs!
Chases Eagles and Everybody, I don’t question your courage or commitment. But, I think you’re looking too close-up.
Indeed, there is danger on American soil, but far greater danger comes from half-way around the world.
Nothing would aid those enemies more than a new American Civil War.
This is what will happen under the current system. The people of Washington State will go to bed believing we have voted down the unwanted and unconstitutional millionaires tax and we will awaken to find a great big ballot dump overnight in commie King County has defeated us. Again.
I don’t want civil war. I don’t want to see it, I don’t want to kill and I certainty don’t want to be killed. Neither do I want an unconstitutional, illegitimate government that basically says “you pretend to vote and we will do whatever we want, serf.”
Chases Eagles and HC68:
Commenter “JR Dogman” had an excellent post on precisely this problem back in the dark days of January 2021:
https://thenewneo.com/2021/01/11/impeachment-redux/#comment-2535197
It didn’t get the attention it deserved. Re-linking it here.
By the way, I agree with Chases Eagles. We’re not voting or lawyer-ing our way out of this. The DSA Dems will, eventually, get power. They’ve made it clear what they intend to do. They’re already doing it where they can; the “Biden” administration was merely a watered-down preview.
What do you suggest we do when they take power in D.C., HC68? File a lawsuit?