On Friday, January 26th, Illinois hearing officers heard arguments from objectors and Joseph R. Biden’s attorneys regarding the petition of four Illinois objectors that asserts Biden has violated the 14th amendment section 3 specifically, by providing “…aid or comfort to the enemies…” of the United States.
In a previous article, Gateway Pundit reported that the motion to dismiss from Biden’s attorneys was based on the assertion that the objectors had no “plausible facts” and claims “…none of the facts alleged are admissible evidence because they lack foundation and are hearsay…” Saturday, a recommendation was given to the Illinois Board of Elections by a hearing officer. Terry Newsome, podcast host of his show Behind Enemy Lines, provided the recommendation on his website: Behind Enemy Lines.
During the hearing on Friday, Mr. Biden’s attorney rejected that objectors presented facts suggesting this is merely a policy dispute and the board should not engage in this type of frivolous objection. To be clear, objectors presented the facts that the Biden administration has violated existing immigration law. Objectors presented facts that, as a result, known terrorists from State Department-designated foreign terrorist organizations have been provided safe transport inside our country. They’ve even shown that Americans have been murdered by some of these individuals.
Terry Newsome, an objector to the Biden candidacy, had the following to say on the Biden attorney’s dismissive posture during the hearing,
“I would ask the following: is it really the position of Mr. Biden’s attorney that murdered American families have no factual evidence to dispute Mr. Biden’s candidacy because allowing an open border that has resulted in the murder of Americans is simply a policy dispute? Should we accept terrorists into our country that will potentially murder Americans as a matter of policy just because the President says so? Or should we consider this a violation of the Constitution?”
Aside from the evidence provided in the previous article showing that Biden aided and abetted known terrorists and terrorist organizations, the original petition lists 64 direct actions taken by the Biden administration that are contrary to the existing immigration laws of the United States.
While the hearing officer asserts the same arguments regarding policy dispute, they add an additional observation and admit this issue goes beyond the scope of the election board. The board’s ability to assess Biden’s candidacy based on the 14th Amendment and whether it would be able to do so without detailed constitutional analysis is questioned. The conclusion is, “It simply cannot.” The officer states further, “These Constitutional issues belong in the courts.” While this could be true and an argument against the petition for removal, it should be called out that no such statement was brought forth in the previous motion to dismiss by Biden’s attorney.
Without an in-depth legal analysis, there are a couple of other curious claims that any layman could dispute in plain language. The hearing officer argues the 14th Amendment issue should be reserved for the courts at the outset of their recommendation. And yet, they go on to argue against the objector’s petition on the basis that the 14th Amendment does not apply. If it is impossible for the board to assess the question of Constitutionality, then the hearing officer’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment is irrelevant.
According to the hearing officer, there is no evidence that Biden “personally” provided aid and comfort to enemies. However, Mr. Biden oversees and directs executive department agencies on border policy. They go on to describe the language of the 14th amendment as not being applicable to the President or Vice-President as their titles are not listed. This is easily disputed, as pointed out in the original petition within the 14th amendment as it states, “…having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States…” which, of course, applies to Joe Biden has been a Senator for almost 40 years.
The recommendation is sloppily written and contradicts itself from the very first challenge. It admits the board cannot assess the Constitutionality of the 14th amendment then goes on to interpret it as further rebuttal. Meanwhile, a few floors above, arguments were heard to remove President Trump from the Illinois ballot. The basis to remove President Trump was the same 14th Amendment section 3 claiming incitement of an insurrection. Of course, President Trump has neither been charged nor convicted of any such crime.
All of this brings to mind one question: who holds the government to account when they violate the Constitution? Perhaps the answer will come November 5th, 2024.