top of page
  • Writer's pictureNEWTON1776



Wednesday January 31, 2024

Edition # 122


“The flak only gets heavy when you’re over the target.” ~ Anonymous WWII Bomber Pilot


(So said Winston Churchill. Napoleon called it a fable agreed upon).

"RETIRED" judge Michael Luttig continues to INTERFERE in elections (and courts).

PERHAPS HIS RETIREMENT was precipitated by his obvious mental condition. 🤔

His argument below (reported by CNN) draws a distinction between Trump and Lincoln, comparing the Constitutional right of secession by South Carolina that prevented Lincoln from governing in one state with Trump exercising HIS constitutional duty as President to ensure our election process (and results) were legitimate; which in Luttig's crackpot opinion prevented Biden "from governing". In his conclusion, Luttig DEFENDS LINCOLN‼️

♦️If you want to compare Trump with Lincoln, TRY THIS -

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

""Just like Colorado now, the Democrats, who were mainly slave owners, barred Republican presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln from appearing on the ballots in 10 Southern states during the 1860 presidential election. But Abraham Lincoln was elected as the 16th President of the United States, becoming the first Republican president in American history.

NOTE: These states were South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia.

NOTE: Lincoln did not appear on the ballots in those Southern states because they did not support his candidacy due to his anti-slavery stance. The Democrats wanted to keep slavery forever.

NOTE: Those slave states chose to support other candidates or not include his name on their ballots. However, despite not being on the ballots in those states, he won the election with a majority of electoral votes from the states where he was on the ballot.

MY TAKE: It's ironic that the Republicans now are described as the racists, people who hate black people when actually, they brought slavery to an end, and the Democrats wanted to keep black people enslaved, even going to war to secede. May God help us not repeat history.""

(according to Simon Ateba - Chief White House correspondent at Today News Africa)

Luttig accuses Trump of "engaging in an armed insurrection" (which he did no such thing or Trump would likely be sitting in jail in DC) and in Luttig's amicus brief argues THAT prevented Biden "from governing anywhere".

✳️A few truths.....

👉🏽Biden was not president on January 6th....TRUMP WAS.

👉🏽Lincoln was never impeached and then found to be innocent eventhough HE violated the Constitution and ordered an armed assault by engaging in war against the American people, suspended Habeas Corpus; while in contrast Democrats in Congress did try to impeach Trump and he was NOT FOUND GUILTY...."ACQUITTED"‼️(Or did you forget)?

👉🏽Luttig ASSISTED VP PENCE in ignoring his sworn duty as president of the US Senate, advising him to certify election results that were embroiled in controversy. Pence had a responsibility under the Constitution to "return to those states" those submitted controversial certifications to be "cured" BEFORE accepting them and finally counting them.

♦️ TODAY'S INVOCATION.....the PENCE story. December 28, 2020

Keep in mind, members of Congress are allowed to object to the counting of Electoral College votes from any given state.

However, that objection will only be considered if it’s endorsed by a representative of the House and the Senate and that seems likely.

“Any such objection must be presented in writing and must be signed by at least one Senator and one Representative,” the provisions in Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code state. So it will depend on if the Trump loyalists are "on their game" or if it's just theatre and smoke.

Here's the ROPE-A-DOPE.

On Jan. 6, a joint session of the new Congress will convene to count the electoral votes and declare the next president. Results will be announced alphabetically by state, and individual representatives and senators may object to those results in writing.

If both a representative and a senator agree to object to a state’s election results, the Senate and the House of Representatives will adjourn to their separate chambers to debate the matter for up to two hours and then hold a vote on whether to reject a slate of electors.

This scenario seems likely to happen, after several Republican representatives have come forward saying they will challenge results, while Alabama Republican Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville has said he might join in, despite Sen. Mitch McConnell urging his caucus not to.

Other conservatives have suggested that Vice President Mike Pence has the unilateral authority to reject slates of electors, based on language in the 12th Amendment......and there is where it gets dicey because the language/meaning has NEVER been firmly defined......

There will also be considerable debate over whether a State's submission of electors meets the "Safe Harbor" threshold AND if there are no pending controversies (meaning unresolved legal challenges lasting beyond the "Safe Harbor" deadline). Both are factors that must be reviewed and pass muster....not just one.

⚠️(There is a current scholarly paper written about this titled: "Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management" by Edward B. Foley. Google it)!

....... excerpt from that paper we find this:

"The first thing to observe about this constitutional language is that the critical sentence is written in the passive voice: “the votes shall then be counted.” Here, thus, is the first frustrating ambiguity. It could be the “President of the Senate” who does the counting; or, after the Presidentof the Senate has finished the role of “open[ing] the certificates” then the whole Congress, in this special joint session, collectively counts the electoral votes.

Either way, this language contains no provision for what to do in the event of a dispute, whether with respect to the “certificates” to be “open[ed]” or with respect to the “votes” contained therein. It certainly says nothing about what to do if the President of the Senate has received two conflicting certificates of electoral votes from the same state, each certificate purporting to come from the state’s authoritatively appointed electors. As the distinguished jurist Joseph Story observed early in the nineteenth century, this crucial constitutional language in the Twelfth Amendment appears to have been written without imagining that it might ever be possible for this sort of dispute to arise.

Despite its ambiguity, or perhaps because of it, the peculiar passive-voice phrasing of this crucial sentence opens up the possibility of interpreting it to provide that the “President of the Senate” has the exclusive constitutional authority to determine which “certificates” to “open” and thus which electoral votes “to be counted.” This interpretation can derive support from the observation that the President of the Senate is the only officer, or instrumentality, of government given an active role in the process of opening the certificates and counting the electoral votes from the states. The Senate and House of Representatives, on this view, have an observational role only. The opening and counting are conducted in their “presence”—for the sake of transparency—but these two legislative bodies do not actually take any actions of their own in this opening and counting process. How could they? Under the Constitution, the Senate and the House of Representatives only act separately, as entirely distinct legislative chambers. They have no constitutional way to act together as one amalgamated corpus. Thus, they can only watch as the President of the Senate opens the certificates of electoral votes from the states and announces the count of the electoral votes contained therein.

This interpretation of the Twelfth Amendment is bolstered, moreover, by the further observation that the responsibility to definitively decide which electoral votes from each state are entitled to be counted must be lodged ultimately in some singular authority of the federal government.

If one body could decide the question one way, while another body could reach the opposite conclusion, then there inevitably is a stalemate unless and until a single authority is identified with the power to settle the matter once and for all. Given the language of the Twelfth Amendment, whatever its ambiguity and potential policy objections, there is no other possible single authority to identify for this purpose besides the President of the Senate." {end quote}


The following is my own personal speculation:

Even from the beginning of the session, you'll need to factor in the individual Senate AND House rules separately. With the close margins, the Democrats (working with anti-Trumpers) could "deny quorum" in the Senate. (I think quorum is 51 attendees required so if my math is correct it would require all the Dems and 2 squishy Republicans - and there are enough of them - to boycott to block any voting).

At the same time, Pelosi uses the Dem majority in the House to MAKE UP SOME NEW RULES which is perfectly legal under House rules of procedure (and there are helpful Republicans that will join her).

In the end, IMO, Biden wins. Republicans puff up their chests holler and scream, again. Democrats take their ignorance to a new level of disdain and Congress goes back to being the globalist organization they've become.

But to avert a Constitutional crisis, Congressional strategists have to be on their game.......AND AFTERWARD, WE MUST STILL AS AMERICANS INSIST ON HONEST, FRAUD-FREE ELECTIONS. So far to date not even one State has gauranteed that‼️


Election Integrity Advocate

Associate Research Investigator with MD20-20WATCH


LUTTIG was engaging in Election interference and committed an act of insurrection against the American people by urging Pence to violate the law and the Constitution.

👉🏽Mr. "retired Conservative judge" LUTTIG, a shining example of conservatism 🙄 (and judicial intemperance) later publicly ENDORSED Progressive Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. For the first time in history, a Supreme Court Justice was preemptively "confirmed" WITHOUT A VACANCY on the Court‼️(clearly showing a lapse in judicial and mental judgement by LUTTIG....and others perpetrating yet another fraud against the United States).

♦️IMO.....this guy needs to get some treatment as it appears he's lost touch with reality, may even be a danger to himself and others.....and maybe step away from repeatedly inserting himself into things that he ought to be prosecuted for doing. #NewtonSaidIt

♦️Luttig's own appointment to the federal bench by BUSH SR. had been approved by the Senate, but he delayed taking the judicial oath of office, because he could not serve credibly or with impartiality as a federal judge.....after serving though he resigned to work for Boeing. Do you want to go down THAT rabbit hole? 🐰🕳️

👉🏽 LUTTIG and Boeing -

GW BUSH and Boeing -

DALLAS, Sept. 20, 2023 — Boeing announced a $10 million investment in the George W. Bush Presidential Center to support its museum.

OBAMA and Boeing - see attached photo.

9/11 and Boeing

CIA and Jeppesen (a Boeing subsidiary) -

On October 23, 2006, The New Yorker reported that Jeppesen handled the logistical planning for the CIA's extraordinary rendition flights. The allegation was based on information from an ex-employee who quoted Bob Overby, the company's managing director, as saying, "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights—you know, the torture flights. Let's face it, some of these flights end up that way. It certainly pays well." The article went on to suggest that this may make Jeppesen a potential defendant in a lawsuit by Khalid El-Masri.

Jeppesen was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on May 30, 2007 on behalf of several others who were allegedly subject to extraordinary rendition. The suit was dismissed in February 2008 on a motion from the United States government on the basis that proceeding with the case would reveal state secrets and endanger relations with other nations that had cooperated.

On May 16, 2011, the Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Ninth Circuit to dismiss the case.

.....While on the bench, he was responsible for some highly contested decisions and by some opinion thought he acted as a judicial activist, ignoring law and embarked on his own theoretical interpretations.....we call that "making law from the bench"! A violation of Separation of Powers ‼️😉



The CNN story —

A former conservative federal appellate judge is urging the Supreme Court to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, arguing the ex-president’s effort to cling to power after his 2020 election loss was “broader” than South Carolina’s secession from the US that triggered the Civil War.

“Mr. Trump tried to prevent the newly-elected President Biden from governing anywhere in the United States. The South Carolina secession prevented the newly-elected President Lincoln from governing only in that State,” J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, told the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Monday.

“Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the Constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly-elected President,” Luttig's brief said. “In doing so, Mr. Trump disqualified himself under Section 3 (of the Constitution).

17 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


PayPal ButtonPayPal Button
bottom of page