Donald Trump is, in my assessment, the greatest President since Ronald Reagan. This is important not only for the USA but for the world. A second term, preceded by a Republican congressional midterm resurgence, could return America to her position as leader of the free world.

I knew little about him until he was nominated as a Republican candidate in 2016. But it soon seemed obvious that if he fulfilled most of the key parts of the agenda he promised at Gettysburg, he would be well on the way to ‘making America great again’.

From the day of his victory, despite massive daily opposition, legal and illegal, Trump was unusually determined to fulfill his promises including moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, something his predecessors also promised but failed to deliver.

Convinced that his advancement of world peace was exceptional, I invited three other eligible nominators to join me in nominating him for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize.

At this time, it was clear that in relation to Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, and the Taliban, he had drawn lines in the sand that none dared cross. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine would never have occurred under Trump.

Despite a gradual and recent reassessment, few if any in the mainstream media have apologised for or even regretted the amount of fake news they published about Donald Trump.

But some are beginning to admit that in every facet of leadership, he was exceptional.

Yet where they begin to concede that President Trump was on so many occasions right, they too often end with the reservation that Trump ‘falsely’ claims the 2020 election was rigged.

Yet when Mrs Clinton claimed the 2016 election was stolen through Trump colluding with the Russians, this was never reported as false, something the Durham investigation could well find is the case.

The fact is the 45th President’s claim that the 2020 election should not be glibly dismissed as false.

His most powerful and most easily provable claim is centred on clear breaches of the Constitution which demonstrate, conclusively, that to this extent it is reasonable to conclude that the election was rigged.

But to stress again, not only was the unconstitutional rigging of the election of central importance to President Trump’s claim, there is no problem of proof concerning the several clear constitutional breaches which are all on the public record.

Although extraordinary instances of apparent fraud, especially in relation to counting in the absence of scrutineers or where they were not allowed to function, were shown on television, proving fraud in sufficient quantities was always going to be difficult.

This was notwithstanding that the election was even closer than in 2016. It is argued that if only 22,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin were found to be Trump’s and not Biden’s, the Electoral College would have been tied. The decision then would have been referred to House. Voting there would have been by state delegations, where the majority was in Republican hands.

The aspect of his claim on which Trump has a powerful case is where the facts are unchallengeable and the Constitution could not be clearer.

Article 1, Section 4, provides that, at the state level, the legislature alone is authorised to regulate elections. There were clear breaches of this in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where governors, bureaucrats and elected judges purported to change the law.

All these are set out in detail in the pleadings in the Supreme Court case brought by 18 State Attorneys General, Texas v. Pennsylvania (2020). But the Court declined to hear this case on a mere technicality. This was that the states had no legal interest to sue, they lacked ‘standing’.

Apart from Justices Alito and Thomas, the judges were, in my view, extremely wary about the violence which could be unleashed by such a hearing.

Most of the Democrat states had experienced an orgy of violence and anarchy unlashed particularly by the Marxist-controlled BLM movement.

In addition, the judges, or some of them, had been the subject of an ominous threat, delivered from the very steps of the Court by none other than the Senate Democrat Minority Leader, Charles Schumer:

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Done in Australia, there is little doubt that he would have been charged with contempt.

The point surely is that, in reassessing the role of Donald Trump, the world media should be wary of following the mainstream American media.

To say that his claims about a rigged election are ‘false’ is patently wrong. Any qualification of such a crucial claim should be factual. Given the media’s acceptance as ‘factual’ on so many matters have subsequently been shown to be wrong, they should be more careful. Take for example Hunter Biden’s laptop, which was seriously reported as Russian misinformation.

Even The New York Times now accepts that this is not so.

Professor David Flint AM, an Emeritus Professor of Law, read law and economics at Universities of Sydney, London and Paris. He remains National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.