A CIA Data Analyst Officer, stationed at the Frankfurt, Germany secret cyber farm raided by U.S. Special Forces last month, has indicated President Donald J. Trump won the 2020 election legitimately.

Officer Mathew Billings has lawyered up after he was terminated from his position while attempting to relay data, documents, and what he witnessed to the media.

Billings, according to two confirming sources, said Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Virginia, Rhode Island and Maine “by a mile. It was a landslide in those states.”

A German newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung, reported “the building was known to be home to a vast network of intelligence personnel including CIA agents, NSA spies, military secret service personnel, Department of Homeland Security employees and Secret Service employees,” according to a report of DW.

(Screenshot from DW article)

Retired Lt. General Thomas McInerney and other sources confirmed it was information from the 305th Military Intelligence Battalion, based out of U.S. Army Fort Huachuca, Arizona that helped perform the raid and secure servers used to illegally flip and alter votes in Joe Biden’s favor.

This intelligence helped Attorney Sidney Powell establish that China, Russia, and Iran used Dominion Voting Systems to interfere in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.

In numerous social media posts, there is growing talk that President Trump may invoke the Executive Order #13848 he signed on September 12, 2018 allowing significant powers for the Treasury, Department of Justice, Military and the president to deal with foreign and domestic terrorism, including interference in US elections.

According to two sources, President Trump realizes that is a viable option and is waiting on the required information and recommendations from specific cabinet members to decide a course of action.

“If he decides to go with that option, it would likely be after Christmas and the holidays,” one source said. “His legal team and advisers want to see how the January 6th Congressional deadline plays out too.”

Last week the Supreme Court rejected the Texas case which cued media pundits and other leftists to begin their predictable hilarity. After all, the United States just witnessed four years of their celebrated Russia-Russia-Russia, Robert Mueller’s Investigation, Kavanaugh Confirmation witness false testimonies, and a bogus impeachment.

When it comes to U.S. elections, there is no higher or final authority than the state legislatures. The Trump Team knew this and appreciated Texas and other states’ attempt.

Justice Alito stated that just as in Arizona vs California 589 U.S., where they disputed over the distribution of the water from the Colorado River, the actions of one state cannot disenfranchise the actions of another.

It was a nice try from Texas but they actually have little say about being wronged just because they voted for Trump and Pennsylvania voted for Biden, even if the laws were illegal.

One state cannot dictate the actions of another state, otherwise we would have precedence for no individuality of states.

“States could all dispute over matters until each and every state had the same laws,” a Texas Constitutional Law attorney explained. “The Supreme Court cannot set a precedence calling for a federal regulation where all states must follow one national law.”

“On the surface, it might sound like a good idea,” she continued. “But this would open a can of worms regarding states having different tax rates, tax breaks and income taxes. When there is competition among states there is less tyranny.”

“In the legal process, the accuser has the greatest amount of pressure in the case. The accused is innocent by default so all of the pressure of proving their side rides on the accuser. At the same time, if the Judge throws the accuser’s case out with prejudice, the accuser can’t bring that complaint up again.”

“There is generally more risk in a case if you act as a prosecutor rather than a defendant. Trump, guided by Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and others, knows it is far better for him to be on the defending end. That is why you have a multi-prong approach–the Campaign, Trump the citizen, criminal charges via Sidney Powell, and you have others like Lin Wood in Georgia who intimately knows his state’s laws and politics. The Texas attempt was a nice try, but it doesn’t cut the mustard.”

“Trump the citizen has to be the accused, not the accuser.”

“Despite what the media or anyone is saying,” she continued. “Basically, Trump doesn’t necessarily need the courts to win reelection. He only needs for the state legislatures to do their jobs. It will be nice if he does get a Supreme Court hearing, but there are some scenarios.”

We are already hearing and seeing that some of these state legislatures are as mad as they can be over the actions of their governors, attorney generals, election officials. Like in Georgia, they know it was a fixed, crooked election despite the laws that, they, the legislatures, created and passed. They have been disenfranchised.”

“We will know plenty by January 6, when Congress counts the votes. This is when the state legislatures will likely change their certifications to Trump in some, or who knows, all of  these states.”

This would cause an internal legal battle within those states.

“In the Constitution, Article 2, Section 2 provide state legislatures have the final say. They determine–not the governor or attorney general–the legal certification winner of their states.”

“Another brilliant caveat is, even though these governors will be royally angered, they were the ones who illegally certified the states and illegally bypassed state laws that took away the state legislatures of their Constitutional powers.”

The Supreme Court has no power to make state legislatures ignore the Constitution. By default, the Constitution trumps federal law.

“The Supreme Court would likely reject these cases. Constitutionally, states win and so does Trump.”

“At this point it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the attorney general of Georgia or Pennsylvania to argue any law can overcome the United States Constitution.”

In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court would take the case because of a Constitutional crisis, it would occur after January 6, 2020.

There are three potential outcomes:

1) Reject the complaints and President Trump wins reelection.

2) Accept the case and invalidate the elections. They would place it back into the hands of the states to vote, with President Trump winning with a  state majority of 26 or more.

3) Accept the case and order a nationwide audit and recertification. Proving the election fraud, with mountains of evidence, Trump wins.

Trump will win because the Constitution says so, whether the legacy media, George Soros, or Communist China disagrees or not.