"As you look and survey the landscape in 2020, I think I personally have been thoroughly pivoting several times over that the election in 2020 was a dirty election that had no integrity. That's actually an overthrow of our form of government," said Keyes.
However, Keyes pointed out that the election is always a time to get representation back, and to assess situations in terms of prospects and reactions against a lot of negative trends. For example, the negative trends that have been generated by the Biden administration. (Related: 3 Milwaukee officials named as defendants in 2020 election bribery case.)
Stone agreed, saying that like a person who steals cars and gets away with it, the administration will steal another one. This is what happened to the people who hijacked the 2020 election and, with the help of the media, insisted that the fraud allegations were lies despite evidence of anomalies and irregularities.
"The United States is in a critical position. We live under a system that gives us the opportunity to make changes that can be quite salutary every couple of years, and in the next two election cycles, I think there may be critical things that could happen," Keyes said.
The Supreme Court has rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 elections.
Stone said: "I think it's pretty clear we're now in a situation in America in which the third branch of government, the one that's supposed to be non-political, is thoroughly and completely politicized."
He also noted that it was outrageous that no court would want to hear the case in the first place. That the Supreme Court would not even hear out the case is absolutely outrageous, but it could also mean that perhaps Trump's appointees to the court were not the right people.
However, some of the Justices had strong feelings about the court preferring not to hear two cases from Pennsylvania that had been contentious, as it is a battleground state. The cases involved an appeal of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that required election officials to receive and count mailed-in ballots that arrived up to three days after the elections.
Three of nine justices said they would have heard the case. (Related: If you thought the 2020 elections were chaotic, just wait.)
Justice Clarence Thomas said the case would have been an "ideal opportunity" to address an important question of whether state lawmakers or state courts get the last word about how federal elections are carried out. He also called it "befuddling" that his colleagues declined to weigh in on the matter. "By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence," he wrote.
He also noted that the expansion of mail-in voting is a good reason to take up the case, saying that "fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots," and Trump did make claims of massive fraud through this system. However, the courts found no evidence to substantiate those claims.
Two years after the much-contested elections, at least 15 people who insisted on reviewing the 2020 results are running for Attorney General in 14 states, including four swing states.
If they win, they can serve as their state's top law enforcement officers and can gain the power to use their office to review the 2020 cases. If Trump runs again in 2024, and the outcome is close in a handful of states, the actions attorneys general could take will include giving Trump the opportunity to claim victory once more.
Joanna Lydgate, CEO of States United Action, a nonpartisan group that tracks the election races, said: "To the extent that election results are challenged, or that there are attempts to undermine results, it will be the state attorneys general representing the state and the results in court that perhaps matters most to protecting the will of the voters."
Visit Rigged.news for more information regarding the 2020 election fraud.
Watch the video below for more about the 2020 election fraud.
"Let's Talk America" with Alan Keyes airs every Wednesday at 1-3 p.m. on Brighteon.TV.