Journalist Challenges Pro-Trump Country Legend, Gets $10K Lesson He'll Never Forget
Country music star John Rich remains so confident that President Donald Trump ultimately will defeat Democrat Joe Biden and be sworn in to serve a second term that he made a $10,000 bet with a Nashville, Tennessee-based journalist, with the proceeds to go to charity.
On Nov. 18, Rich tweeted, “When this election mess makes it to the #SupremeCourt, I predict the judges won’t be able to make a decision one way or the other because of the volume of irregularities. My bet is that they lean on the #12th amendment and kick this election back down to the state legislatures.”
When this election mess makes it to the #SupremeCourt, I predict the judges won’t be able to make a decision one way or the other because of the volume of irregularities. My bet is that they lean on the #12thamendment and kick this election back down to the state legislatures.
— John Rich (@johnrich) November 18, 2020
After the Supreme Court denied an emergency injunction on Tuesday in an election challenge lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania GOP Congressman Mike Kelly in the Keystone State, Nashville journalist Adam Gold used a crude insult to jab Rich about his prognostication.
“Still feeling good about your SCOTUS prediction, Nostradumbass?” Gold tweeted, sharing the Supreme Court denial document.
“VERY confident!” the singer/songwriter responded. “Let’s make our bet official. We both put 10k into an escrow account and if Biden is sworn in as POTUS, I lose my 10k, but you have to DONATE it to (Folds of Honor). If Trump wins, I’ll donate your 10k to a charity of your choice. Deal?”
.@goldadam VERY confident! Let’s make our bet official. We both put 10k into an escrow account and if Biden is sworn in as POTUS, I lose my 10k, but you have to DONATE it to @FoldsOfHonor. If Trump wins, I’ll donate your 10k to a charity of your choice. Deal? #PutUpOrShutUp https://t.co/f9cTtsjdPO
— John Rich (@johnrich) December 9, 2020
According to its Twitter bio, Folds of Honor “provides educational scholarships to the spouses and children of America’s fallen or disabled service members.”
Gold accepted the bet in a reply tweet but did not list his charity.
The Supreme Court may have chosen to pass on Kelly’s case in light of one filed by the state of Texas that names Pennsylvania as a defendant along with Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Eighteen other states and over 100 Republican members of Congress have come out in support of the Texas lawsuit, while six have formally joined, according to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Proud to lead over 100 of my colleagues in filing an amicus brief to express our concern with the integrity of the 2020 election–& our election system in the future. We believe this suit filed by Texas, supported by 17 other states, merits full & careful consideration by SCOTUS. pic.twitter.com/ZKpP8XFl1C
— Rep. Mike Johnson (@RepMikeJohnson) December 11, 2020
At the heart of the Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania case is the charge that the four states in question violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which gives state legislatures the sole power to designate how presidential electors will be chosen, as well as the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection and due process under the law.
The suit has the potential to change the outcome of the election so Rich’s prediction would come true.
On Tuesday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany called Texas’ filing “the single most important document of the 2020 election.”
“Here is what we know,” the complaint reads. “Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, ‘Defendant States’), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes.
[firefly_poll]
“They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote — signature verification and witness requirements.”
In light of these facts and many more offered, Texas called on the Supreme Court to “[d]eclare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted.”
Texas further asked the justices to authorize the defendant states “to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors” or to “direct the state legislatures to appoint a new set of presidential electors” consistent with the Electors Clause and the 14th Amendment.
It’s yet to be determined if Rich will win his bet, but the Texas case offers one potential avenue to victory and a Trump second term.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
UPDATE, Dec. 11, 2020: Following publication of this article, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Texas motion. Since this article was accurate when posted, it remains above as published.
