POL November 3: The 2020 U.S. ELECTION DAY MAIN THREAD

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Dominion voting software can permit staff to manually adjust ballot returns during counting process

Process of "adjudication" allows for "resolution of voter intent."

By Daniel Payne

Updated: November 20, 2020 - 7:42am

Voting software deployed by the election hardware company Dominion Voting Systems can allow election staffers to manually adjust tally amounts while reviewing scanned ballot images, a process that the company says allows for "resolution of voter intent" in cases where ballot marks are unclear.

Dominion has been at the center of tumultuous controversy since the election amid reports of glitchy and/or unreliable voting software and hardware. The company has a presence in a majority of U.S. states, including critical battleground states in which Democratic challenger Joe Biden has been declared the winner by major media outlets.

President Trump has suggested that malfeasance by Dominion is responsible for the narrow edge in posted vote totals that Biden holds in those states. Dominion, meanwhile, has unequivocally denied any wrongdoing or errors within its machines.

"No credible reports or evidence of any software issues exist," the company has stated on its website. "Dominion equipment is used by county and state officials to tabulate ballots. Human errors related to reporting tabulated results have arisen in a few counties, including some using Dominion equipment, but appropriate procedural actions have been taken by the county to address these errors were made prior to the canvass process."

The company also stated that "vote deletion/switching assertions" that have circulated since the election are "completely false."

'Anybody who has Dominion has this'
The company has claimed that "it is not possible for a bad actor to change election results without detection." Dominion does, meanwhile, allow at least one avenue for manual adjustment of vote tallies as part of a process known as "adjudication."

Santa Clara County, California, as part of its agreement with Dominion Voting Systems, stipulates that the company's software must allow county staff "to adjust tally based on review of scanned ballot images."

Evelyn Mendez, the public information officer for the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, said that "the wording [in the contract] is a little weird," but that it refers to a provision meant to ensure that "adjudication" of uncertain votes can occur.

Adjudication, Mendez told Just the News, is used in circumstances such as when there’s a contest in which a single candidate must be chosen yet "someone votes for two."

"It’s the process of looking at the ballot and determining, 'Did the voter mean to do that'?" she said.

"If someone puts in a dot instead of a checkmark," she added, "or if they didn’t bubble it the right way, our staff are looking at the ballot and confirming what's correct."

Mendez, who stressed that staffers are looking not at actual ballots but at scanned images of them, said that the process is performed by two individuals.
"Two people, one on the mouse and one on the clicker, are looking at the same screen, talking about the same ballot, determining the voter’s intent," she said. "It’s a manual view of what voters meant to do. If staffers can’t figure out what to do, it goes to another level where further county officials can adjudicate it."
Mendez confirmed that adjudication adjustments are done manually by staffers.
Dominion did not return multiple requests for comment on Wednesday and Thursday, including emails, a phone call and a voicemail. Just the News sought to learn more about the process, including whether or not all counties that contract with Dominion are given similar tally adjustment access.
Mendez, meanwhile, said such contractual stipulations are common.

"This is normal," she said. "Anybody who has Dominion has this. We’re not the only county that has to adjudicate ballots."

The company on its website lays out its system for adjudicating votes, what it calls "an efficient, auditable process for ballots that meet customizable outstack conditions based on jurisdictional needs."

The system "allows for efficient processing of ballots that require resolution of voter intent during the post-voting stage of an election," the company says in a brochure advertising its adjudication software.

"Anyone reviewing a ballot will be able to see how the voter marked their ballot, how the scanner interpreted the intent, and how the ballot was adjudicated," the brochure reads.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Work being done by Checkyourvote.org has compared voter records with death records from various sources and has developed lists of
Deceased Michigan Voters
Deceased Pennsylvania Voters
Partisan Pending Differences in Pennsylvania

The last report is interesting Pending Ballot Differences in Pennsylvania

Summary:
  • PA Vote Counting Dashboard represents mail-in-ballots are 98.4% counted. Checking voter statuses in the PA Ballot Tracker shows that there are more votes than the Dashboard claims (30,867 more votes were found in the Status Tracker) and that only 83.6% are marked as recorded with 14.6% in the “Pending” state (remaining 1.9% marked “Cancelled”).
  • Voters registered as Republican are more likely to have a ballot in the pending status and voters registered as Democrat are more likely to have a recorded status. Democrat voters are 87.1% recorded and 10.8% pending. Republican voters are 77.8% recorded and 20.6% pending.
  • Tests checked every registered voter across four counties in the Ballot Status Tracker. The pattern described above, that more mail-in ballots have statuses than the Dashboard reports, that more ballots are in the pending status than the Dashboard suggests, and that Republicans are more likely to be pending than Democrats, holds true in each of the four counties tested (Armstrong, Delaware, Indiana, and Washington).
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Wisconsin officials: Trump observers obstructing recount

by: The Associated Press
Posted: Nov 21, 2020 / 03:23 PM PST / Updated: Nov 21, 2020 / 03:23 PM PST

wisconsin.jpeg


MILWAUKEE (AP) — Election officials in Wisconsin’s largest county accused observers for President Donald Trump on Saturday of seeking to obstruct a recount of the presidential results, in some instances by objecting to every ballot tabulators pulled to count.

Trump requested the recount in Milwaukee and Dane counties, both heavily liberal, in hopes of undoing Democrat Joe Biden’s victory by about 20,600 votes. With no precedent for a recount reversing such a large margin, Trump’s strategy is widely seen as aimed at an eventual court challenge, part of a push in key states to undo his election loss.

A steady stream of Republican complaints in Milwaukee was putting the recount far behind schedule, county clerk George Christenson said. He said many Trump observers were breaking rules by constantly interrupting vote counters with questions and comments.

“That’s unacceptable,” he said. He said some of the Trump observers “clearly don’t know what they are doing.”

Tim Posnanski, a county election commissioner, told his fellow commissioners there appeared to be two Trump representatives at some tables where tabulators were counting ballots, violating rules that call for one observer from each campaign per table. Posnanski said some Trump representatives seemed to be posing as independents.

At one recount table, a Trump observer objected to every ballot that tabulators pulled from a bag simply because they were folded, election officials told the panel.

Posnanski called it “prima facie evidence of bad faith by the Trump campaign.”

He added later: “I want to know what is going on and why there continues to be obstruction.”

Joe Voiland, a lawyer speaking to commission members on behalf of the Trump campaign, denied his side was acting in bad faith.

“I want to get to the point of dialing everything down … and not yelling at each other,” Voiland said.

At least one Trump observer was escorted out of the building by sheriff’s deputies Saturday after pushing an election official who had lifted her coat from an observer chair. Another Trump observer was removed Friday for not wearing a face mask properly as required.

Trump paid $3 million, as required by state law, for the partial recount that began Friday and must conclude by Dec. 1.

His team is seeking to disqualify ballots where election clerks filled in missing address information on the certification envelope where the ballot is inserted, even though the practice has long been accepted in Wisconsin.

The campaign also alleges thousands of absentee ballots don’t have proper written paperwork, and that some absentee voters improperly declared themselves “indefinitely confined,” a status that allows them to receive a ballot without photo ID. Those challenges were being rejected.

There have been at least 31 recounts in statewide elections in the U.S. since the most famous one in Florida’s presidential election in 2000. The recounts changed the outcome of three races. All three were decided by hundreds of votes, not thousands.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

“What’s Coming in Georgia Will Be Shocking!” – Trump Attorney Jordan Sekulow Promises BIG NEWS in Georgia on Monday or Tuesday (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published November 21, 2020 at 3:24pm

jordan-sekulow-basile-600x321.jpg


President Donald Trump lawyer Jordan Sekulow told Newsmax TV on Saturday that the campaign is filing a “shocking” lawsuit next week in Georgia!

Jordan added that the coming lawsuit includes NEW allegations that no one has heard yet.


Sekulow told Newsmax host Tom Basile:
“We have got lawsuits likely to be filed in Georgia on either Monday or Tuesday; I can’t get into the details. I can’t tell you right now, but what’s coming in Georgia will be shocking, when we file this in federal court Monday or Tuesday It’s nothing that we have talked before. It’s not what you heard in the press conference [Thursday] either. This is something completely separate… I will tell you, the Lt. Gov. [Geoff Duncan] in Georgia, the Secretary of State in Georgia [Brad Raffensperger] in Georgia, they’re in for quite a shock on Monday and Tuesday about how poorly they run and they ran – there’s going to be a proof – of how poorly run they ran the elections in one of their major counties”
Earlier today President Trump started his Saturday tweeting this out — “Big voter fraud information coming out concerning Georgia. Stay tuned!”
Big voter fraud information coming out concerning Georgia. Stay tuned!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2020
This coming week should be lit!

Via Newsmax:
View: https://youtu.be/H2Tsmrdbcyo
12:20 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
[COMMENT: Damn, why can't these attorneys stay on the trail and not detour into the weeds which take away from their credibility enormously.]


“Every Lie Will Be Revealed – They’re Going to be Shocked at Level of P*dophilia – Satanic Worship” – Lin Wood Does Not Hold Back in EXPLOSIVE “Thrive Time” Interview (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published November 21, 2020 at 5:00pm

lin-wood-trump-thrive-time-600x345.jpg


Attorney L. Lin Wood held an interview this morning with “The Thrive Time” Show hosts Clay Clark and Dr. Robert Zoellner and boy did he NOT hold back!

This was JUST WILD!

The Lin Wood tweet is still up but probably not for long.
llin-wood-wild-interview.jpg

Lin Wood dropped this line that will make your jaw drop!

Attorney Lin Wood: So the Supreme Court is being aligned. They Department of Defense was recently realigned by the president. Take a look at how he put in place, a cyberterrorism and terrorism expert. As I said look at what he did in 2018 with the executive order to deal with foreign interference in our national elections. Look, I’d like to see in a perfect world, John Durham’s report come out and people go to jail. I’d like to see Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and a lot of people go to jail. I’d like to see what’s on Hunter Biden’s laptop. I’d like to see those people go to jail. I’d like to see what’s on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. I’d like to see a lot of people go to jail. And then when we get to the final phase of the election fraud I’d like to see people go to jail. The one thing I’ll say is there’ll be an intermingling. There will be people going to jail I believe who are involved in all of those or some of those same investigations. So there is potentially a great awakening. The truth has to come out. I believe it will. I do not think that you can hide the truth. I do say it and I believe it, every lie will be revealed. This country’s going to be shocked when the find the truth about who’s been occupying the Oval Office for some periods of years. They’re going to be shocked at the level of pedoph*lia. They are going to be shocked at what I believe is going to be a revelation in terms of people who are engaged in satanic worship.

Wow!
Told you so!


Here is the full interview with the “The Thrive Time.”

View: https://youtu.be/-0XNPFeKi28
54:13 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

JUST IN: Obama-Appointed Judge Dismisses Trump Campaign Lawsuit Seeking to Block Pennsylvania From Certifying Election Results

By Cristina Laila
Published November 21, 2020 at 6:06pm

9EAD41A5-EE84-4951-887B-EE0C0E822D9C-600x303.jpeg


US District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Matthew Brann, a Barack Obama appointee on Saturday dismissed a Trump campaign lawsuit seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying its election results.
JUST IN >>> Federal judge DISMISSES Trump Campaign’s lawsuit seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying election results. pic.twitter.com/cODZgYhvfO
— Alex Silverman (@AlexSilverman) November 21, 2020
The Trump campaign argued the equal protection clause, however the Obama judge shot back and said, “That some counties may have chosen to implement the guidance (or not), or to implement it differently, does not constitute an equal protection violation.”

The judge accused the Trump campaign of asking the Court to “disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.”

“This court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter.”

Judge Brann said Trump’s legal team “was not armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.”

President Trump was up by nearly 700,000 votes on election night in Pennsylvania when the crooked Democrat officials suspended vote counting.
Within 48 hours following Election Day, the crooked Secretary of State admitted there were millions of ballots that needed to be counted.

GOP observers were blocked from watching ballot counters in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani alleges 680,000+ ballots were counted for Joe Biden without GOP observers present.

Joe Biden leads in Pennsylvania by approximately 70,000 votes after elections officials continued to count ballots for more than 2 weeks after Election Day.
 

samus79

Veteran Member
[COMMENT: Damn, why can't these attorneys stay on the trail and not detour into the weeds which take away from their credibility enormously.]

I agree, right now they should be laser focused on the election fraud. True or not, making these allegations of satan worship is going to be used to discredit them and be mocked in the media. There’s already too much of that right now as it is, no need to give them more ammo.
 

Hogwrench

Senior Member
No actual FRAUD has happened because none of the vote totals have been CERTIFIED yet.
I just researched this and that premise appears to be false. For example in statutes that cover shoplifting, usually there is verbiage along the lines of after passing all points of purchase. This is how you show intent they planned to shoplift. Because a reasonable person would not walk past all points of purchase with merchandise unless they plan on stealing.

The federal statutes say nothing about certification of votes to establish a crime has been committed. The act itself is the crime and intent is implicit on the act. I have attached the statutes. These are the elements of the crime. Basically when reading law, this is your checklist. If you check all the boxes in the USC, then you have all the elements of a crime. At least in local law. I will disclose that all my experience is in local and state statutes.


Federal Criminal Jurisdiction

Federal criminal jurisdiction over the activities described below can generally be obtained when those activities take place:

In elections where a federal candidate’s name is on the ballot.

In any election (federal or nonfederal), when the fraud involves the necessary participation of an election official acting “under color of law.”

In connection with voter registration. The fact that voter registration is “unitary” in all 50 States (a citizen registers once to become eligible to vote for both federal and nonfederal candidates) confers federal jurisdiction regardless of the type of election.

In connection with the misuse, or unauthorized trespass, involving a computer system used in connection with an election, to the extent that the misuse or trespass is conducted “under color of law.”

II. Conduct Actionable as Federal Election Fraud, Intimidation, or Suppression

The following activities provide a basis for federal prosecution under the statutes referenced in each category:

Paying voters to register to vote, or to vote in elections where a federal candidate’s name is on the ballot (52 U.S.C. § 10307, 18 U.S.C. § 597), or through the use of the mails in those States where vote buying is a “bribery” offense (18 U.S.C. § 1952), or in federal elections in those States where purchased votes or registrations are voidable under state law (52 U.S.C. § 20511).

Multiple voting in a federal election, voting for individuals in a federal election who do not personally participate in the voting act attributed to them, or impersonating voters (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307, 20511).

Intimidating voters through physical duress in any election (18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(A)); or through physical or economic intimidation in connection with registration to vote or voting in a federal election (52 U.S.C. § 20511, 18 U.S.C. § 594).If the victim is a federal employee, intimidation in connection with all elections is prohibited (18 U.S.C. § 610).

Malfeasance by election officials, acting “under color of law,” such as diluting valid ballots with invalid ones (so-called “ballot box stuffing”), rendering false vote tabulations, or preventing valid voter registrations or votes from being given effect in any election (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242), as well as in elections where federal candidates are on the ballot (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307, 20511).

Qualifying fictitious individuals to vote in federal elections by placing fictitious names on voter registration rolls (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307, 20511); or through “color of law” in any election (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242).

Preventing or impeding qualified voters from participating in an election where a federal candidate’s name is on the ballot through such tactics as disseminating false information as to the date, timing, or location of federal voting activity (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242).

Registering to vote, or voting in a federal election, by persons who are not entitled to vote under applicable state law, most notably persons who have committed serious crimes, and persons who are not United States citizens (18 U.S.C. §§ 1015(f), 611, and 52 U.S.C. § 20511).

Falsely claiming United States citizenship in connection with registering to vote or voting in any election (18 U.S.C. §§ 911, 1015(f)).

Voting in a federal election by anyone who is not a United States citizen in those States where citizenship is a requisite for the franchise (currently all 50 States) (18 U.S.C. § 611).

Providing false information concerning a voter’s name, address, or period of residence in order to register to vote, or to vote in a federal election (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307, 20511).

Causing the submission of voter registrations in any election, or of ballots in federal elections, that are materially defective under applicable state law (52 U.S.C. § 20511).

Ordering, keeping, or having under one’s control any troops or armed men at any polling place in a general or special election, if one is a civil or military officer or employee of the United States government (18 U.S.C. § 592).

 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

“Miscarriage of Justice” – Mark Levin Goes Off on Obama Judge That Dismissed Trump Campaign Lawsuit Seeking to Block Pennsylvania From Certifying Its Results

By Cristina Laila
Published November 21, 2020 at 7:50pm

2017-05-10-Mark-Levin-Hannity-Chuck-Schumer-Democrats-James-Comey-590x340.jpg
Mark Levin

Constitutional law expert Mark Levin went off on Obama Judge Matthew Brann for dismissing the Trump campaign’s lawsuit from seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying its results.

As reported earlier tonight, US District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Matthew Brann on Saturday dismissed a Trump campaign lawsuit seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying its election results.

The judge torched Trump’s legal team and accused them of asking the Court to “disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.”

The Trump campaign argued the equal protection clause, however the Obama judge shot back and said, “That some counties may have chosen to implement the guidance (or not), or to implement it differently, does not constitute an equal protection violation.”

The Obama judge also argued that the Trump campaign presented “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.”

Mark Levin went off on the far left activist judge in a tweetstorm and said his opinion “reads as if it was written for media.”

Levin said he read the Trump campaign’s legal complaint and it was full of affidavits and serious constitutional issues that absolutely overcame a motion to dismiss.
1. This Obama judge in Pennsylvania is outrageous. I read the complaint. It was full of affidavits and serious constitutional issues that absolutely overcame a motion to dismiss.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) November 22, 2020
“This is a miscarriage of justice,” Levin said.
2. There was unquestionably a reasonable basis in fact and law to proceed, and to allow the Trump campaign’s lawyers to conduct immediate discovery. This is a miscarriage of justice. And the judge’s opinion reads as if it was written for the media.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) November 22, 2020
The problem now is that judges refuse to uphold Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution which states explicitly that the state legislatures, not judges or governors, make election laws.
3. The problem the Trump campaign is facing now is the unwillingness of judges to actually do their jobs, certainly in this case, and certainly in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the chief justice failed to do his job..
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) November 22, 2020
4. ..and uphold Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which states explicitly that the state legislatures, not judges or governors, make election laws. I hope the Trump campaign seeks an emergency appeal to the circuit court.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) November 22, 2020
Levin said he is “increasingly worried about the judiciary buckling to the media and Democrat Party pressure. After all, it is a lot easier for a judge to kill a case then take it up and follow it through, particularly in these critical cases.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

‘Today’s Decision Helps Us Get Expeditiously to the US Supreme Court’ – Trump Legal Team Releases Statement on Pennsylvania Ruling

By Cristina Laila
Published November 21, 2020 at 8:49pm

Sidney-Powell-Rudy-Giuliani-Jenna-Ellis-Absentee-Ballot-Demo-Press-Conference-Screen-Image-11192020-600x306.jpg


President Trump’s legal team responded to Judge Matthew Brann’s decision to dismiss their lawsuit seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying its election results.

As reported earlier tonight, US District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Matthew Brann on Saturday dismissed a Trump campaign lawsuit seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying its election results.

Judge Brann, an Obama appointee torched Trump’s legal team and accused them of asking the Court to “disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.”

The Trump campaign argued the equal protection clause, however the Obama judge shot back and said, “That some counties may have chosen to implement the guidance (or not), or to implement it differently, does not constitute an equal protection violation.”

President Trump’s legal team responded to Brann’s ruling and their statement was fire.

“Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the US Supreme Court. Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock,” Rudy Giuliani, Attorney to Trump and Jenna Ellis, Senior Legal Advisor to Trump 2020 Campaign wrote.

Giuliani and Ellis said they will be seeking an expedited appeal to the Third Circuit.

“There is so much evidence that in Pennsylvania, Democrats eliminated our opportunity to present 50 witnesses and other evidence that election officials blatantly ignored Pennsylvania’s law denying independent review. This resulted in 682,777 ballots being cast illegally, wittingly or unwittingly. This is just an extension of Big Tech, Big Media, Corrupt Democrat censorship of damning facts the American public needs to know.

“We are disappointed we did not at least get the opportunity to present our evidence at a hearing. Unfortunately the censorship continues. We hope that the Third Circuit will be as gracious as Judge Brann in deciding our appeal one way or the other as expeditiously as possible. This is another case that appears to be moving quickly to the United States Supreme Court.”
EnZCWtTW4AEXYdt-576x600.jpg

NEW: @RudyGiuliani and my statement for @TeamTrump on Pennsylvania ruling.
(We actually read the 37-page ruling BEFORE reacting.) pic.twitter.com/4nhuakofrt
— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) November 22, 2020
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Sidney Powell: 35,000 Votes Were Added to Every Democrat Candidate – I’d Be Willing to Bet It Happened Everywhere (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published November 21, 2020 at 8:53pm

sidney-powell-votes.jpg


Sidney Powell joined Newsmax on Saturday night to discuss the latest developments in the 2020 election investigations.

This was ANOTHER EXPLOSIVE interview by the Trump attorney.
Powell said 35,000 votes were added to every Democrat candidate.
Sidney Powell: We have other testimonial evidence that appears to be coming in now that indicates the Democrats literally added 35,000 votes to every Democrat candidate to begin with… Definitely, all over one state and I’d be willing to bet it happened everywhere.
Via Newsmax:

View: https://youtu.be/Lx7BFOOxFVo
4:19 min
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
The federal statutes say nothing about certification of votes to establish a crime has been committed. The act itself is the crime and intent is implicit on the act. I have attached the statutes. These are the elements of the crime. Basically when reading law, this is your checklist. If you check all the boxes in the USC, then you have all the elements of a crime. At least in local law. I will disclose that all my experience is in local and state statutes.
You violate "voting procedure" and talk booth to booth and you'll find out right quick that you have committed a crime.

And possibly voided your right to vote.

And potentially called the ENTIRE Poll Station vote (everyone else's) into question - which will require the services of a judge and the local election commissioners to resolve.

Dobbin
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Michigan AG Calls For Criminal Charges Against GOP Certifiers Who Won't 'Fall In Line'

Sat, 11/21/2020 - 22:00
Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We have been discussing the campaign of The Lincoln Project and others to harass and abuse lawyers who represent the Trump campaign or other parties bringing election challenges. Similar campaigns have targeted election officials who object to counting irregularities. Now, the Michigan Attorney General and others are suggesting that Republicans who oppose certification or even meet with President Donald Trump on the issue could be criminally investigated or charged. Once again, the media is silent on this clearly abusive use of the criminal code target members of the opposing party in their raising objections under state law.


Michigan AG Dana Nessel

On Friday afternoon, leaders of Michigan’s Republican-controlled state legislature met with Trump in the White House at his invitation. My column today explores the difficulty in any strategy to trigger an electoral college fight. However, the objections from legislators could focus on an host of sworn complaints from voters or irregularities in voting counts. I remain skeptical of the sweeping claims made by some Trump lawyers and I was highly critical of Rudy Giuliani’s global communist conspiracy claim at the press conference this week. State legislators have a right to raise electoral objections and seek resolution in the legislative branch.

According to the Washington Post, Dana Nessel “is conferring with election law experts on whether officials may have violated any state laws prohibiting them from engaging in bribery, perjury and conspiracy.” It is same weaponization of the criminal code for political purposes that we have seen in the last four years against Trump. Notably, the focus is the same discredited interpretation used against Trump and notably not adopted by the impeachment-eager House Judiciary Committee: bribery.

In Politico, Richard Primus wrote that these legislators should not attend a meeting with Trump because “it threatens the two Michigan legislators, personally, with the risk of criminal investigation.”

This ridiculous legal claims is based on the bribery theory:
The danger for Shirkey and Chatfield, then, is that they are being visibly invited to a meeting where the likely agenda involves the felony of attempting to bribe a public official.

Under Michigan law, any member of the Legislature who “corruptly” accepts a promise of some beneficial act in return for exercising his authority in a certain way is “forever disqualified to hold any public office” and “shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 10 years[.]”
We repeatedly discussed this theory during the Trump presidency. As I have previously written, a leading proponent has been former prosecutor and Washington Post columnist Randall D. Eliason, who insisted that “allegations of a wrongful quid pro quo are really just another way of saying that there was a bribe … it’s bribery if a quid pro quo is sought with corrupt intent, if the president is not pursuing legitimate U.S. policy but instead is wrongfully demanding actions by Ukraine that would benefit him personally.” Eliason further endorsed the House report and assured that “The legal and factual analysis of bribery and honest services fraud in the House report is exactly right” and “outlines compelling evidence of federal criminal violations.”

The theory was never “exactly” or even remotely right, as evidenced by the decision not to use it as a basis for impeachment. And yet, it’s back. Indeed, the greatest danger of the theory was not that it would ever pass muster in the federal court system but that it would be used (as here) in the political system to criminalize policy and legal disagreements. (Eliason recently defended the attacks on fellow lawyers who are represented those challenging election results or practices).

In my testimony, I went into historical and legal detail to explain why this theory was never credible. While it was gleefully presented by papers like the Washington Post, it ignored case law that rejected precisely this type of limitless definition of the offense. As I told the House Judiciary Committee, the Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed the scope of the statutory definition of bribery, including distinctions with direct relevance to the current controversy in cases like McDonnell v. United States, where the Court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell. Chief Justice John Roberts eviscerated what he called the “boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” The Court explained the such “boundless interpretations” are inimical to constitutional rights because they deny citizens the notice of what acts are presumptively criminal: “Under the Government’s interpretation, the term ‘official act’ is not defined ‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited,’ or ‘in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’”

I will not repeat the litany of cases rejecting this type of broad interpretation.

However, the case law did not matter then and it does not matter now to those who believe that the criminal code is endless flexible to meet political agenda.

It doesn’t even matter that the Supreme Court reaffirmed prior rejections of such broad interpretations in a recent unanimous ruling written by Justice Elena Kagan. In Kelly v. United States, the Supreme Court threw out the convictions in the “Bridgegate” case involving the controversial closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic problems for the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who refused to endorse then-Gov. Chris Christie. The Court observed:
“That requirement, this Court has made clear, prevents these statutes from criminalizing all acts of dishonesty by state and local officials. Some decades ago, courts of appeals often construed the federal fraud laws to “proscribe[] schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government.” McNally, 483 U. S., at 355. This Court declined to go along. The fraud statutes, we held in McNally, were “limited in scope to the protection of property rights.” Id., at 360. They did not authorize federal prosecutors to “set[] standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials.” Ibid.”
That is the argument that I raised in the impeachment against the proposed articles of impeachment — supported by a host of experts on MSNBC and CNN as well as Democratic members — that the Ukrainian allegations could be charged as mail and wire fraud as well as crimes like extortion.

What is most disturbing is that, if there was an objection to voting irregularities or fraud, these legislators would be acting under their state constitutional authority. They would be investigated for carrying out their official duties under state law. Many of us can disagree with such objections. (I have stated repeatedly that I do not see the evidence of systemic voting problems to reverse such state results and I have criticized President Trump’s rhetoric). However, when Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Cal.) challenged the certification of Ohio’s electoral votes in 2004, no one suggested criminal investigations. Nessel is threatening state legislators that, if they meet to discuss such objections, they might be targets of criminal investigations. That would seem an effort to use the criminal code for the purposes of intimidation or coercion. Imagine if this was U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr threatening Democratic legislators with possible criminal investigation for challenging Trump votes. The media would be apoplectic. Yet, when used against Republicans, major publications and politicians are celebrated for the use of the criminal code for such politically motivated threats.

As with the attacks on Republican lawyers, the threats against Republican legislators has been met with utter silence in the media. Just the familiar sound of crickets.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Chinese parts, hidden ownership, growing scrutiny: Inside America's biggest maker of voting machines

Scrutiny of the U.S. election system, spurred by Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, has put Election Systems & Software in the political spotlight.



New questions about voting machines as 2020 election approaches
DEC. 19, 2019

By Ben Popken, Cynthia McFadden and Kevin Monahan

OMAHA, Neb. — Just off a bustling interstate near the border between Nebraska and Iowa, a 2,800-square-foot American flag flies over the squat office park that is home to Election Systems & Software LLC.

The nondescript name and building match the relative anonymity of the company, more commonly known as ES&S, which has operated in obscurity for years despite its central role in U.S. elections. Nearly half of all Americans who vote in the 2020 election will use one of its devices.

That’s starting to change. A new level of scrutiny of the election system, spurred by Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, has put ES&S in the political spotlight. The source of the nation’s voting machines has become an urgent issue because of real fears that hackers, whether foreign or domestic, might tamper with the mechanics of the voting system.

That has led to calls for ES&S and its competitors, Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems and Austin, Texas-based Hart Intercivic, to reveal details about their ownership and the origins of the parts, some of which come from China, that make up their machines.

But ES&S still faces questions about the company’s supply chain and the identities of its investors, although it has said it is entirely owned by Americans. And the results of its government penetration tests, in which authorized hackers try to break in so vulnerabilities can be identified and fixed, have yet to be revealed.

Image:


The quality assurance lab at Election Systems and Software LLC.Scott Morgan / for NBC News

The secrecy of ES&S and its competitors has pushed politicians to seek information on security, oversight, finances and ownership. This month, a group of Democratic politicians sent the private equity firms that own the major election vendors a letter asking them to disclose a range of such information, including ownership, finances and research investments.

"The voting machine lobby, led by the biggest company, ES&S, believes they are above the law,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Intelligence Committee who co-signed the letter. “They have not had anybody hold them accountable even on the most basic matters.”

ES&S Chief Executive Tom Burt dismissed criticism as inevitable and impossible to answer, but he called for greater oversight of the national election process.

“There are going to be people who have opinions from now until eternity about the security of the equipment, the bias of those companies who are producing the equipment, the bias of the election administrators who are conducting the election,” Burt said in an interview. “I can’t do anything to affect those people’s opinions.”

“What the American people need is a system that can be audited, and then those audits have to happen and be demonstrated to the American public,” Burt said. “That's what will cut through the noise.”

Supply chain questions
ES&S invited NBC News journalists into its headquarters, the first time it has done so for a national news organization. The walls were decorated with images of the Constitution and inspirational messages about quality control. In glass-walled rooms etched with the company’s patents, technicians tested machines under tight security.

Burt, a native Nebraskan, has called for federal regulations that would require voting machine companies to address some of the key questions posed to ES&S. In June, he wrote an op-ed asking Congress for more regulation, which would include requirements for paper backups of individual votes, mandatory post-election audits and more resources for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to speed improvements.

Image:


CEO Tom Burt talks with Cynthia McFadden of NBC News.Scott Morgan / for NBC News

NBC News examined publicly available online shipping records for ES&S for the past five years and found that many parts, including electronics and tablets, were made in China and the Philippines, raising concerns about technology theft or sabotage.

During the tour, Burt said the overseas facilities are “very secure.” He said the final assembly of voting machines takes place in the U.S.

Chinese manufacturers can be forced to cooperate with requests from Chinese intelligence officials to share any information about the technology and therefore pose a risk for U.S. companies, NBC News analyst Frank Figliuzzi, a former assistant director of the FBI for counterintelligence, said. That could include intellectual property, such as source code, materials or blueprints. There is also the concern of machines shipped with undetected vulnerabilities or backdoors that could allow tampering.

In a letter to NBC News, ES&S said it takes “great care” with its foreign supply chain, including conducting risk assessments and making on-site visits to suppliers to make sure that components “are trusted, tested and free of malware.” It said that all of its facilities adhere to international standards, that it manufactures in compliance with all federal guidelines and that it follows cybersecurity best practices.

The company says that its overseas manufacturing site has been successfully audited by the Election Assistance Commission and that the company conducts on-site visits of its suppliers “to ensure that components are trusted, tested and free of malware.”

“Some components (such as surface mount capacitors, resistors, inductors and fixed logic devices) may be sourced from China-based manufacturers,” the letter said, referring to basic circuitry components.

ES&S said it conducts quality assurance tests on the machines.

Ownership questions
Questions about who owns the major voting machine manufacturers have followed the industry for years.

The issue took on greater urgency after the FBI disclosed in July 2018 that a Russian oligarch had invested in a Maryland election services firm. Officials in Maryland and North Carolina have started questioning voting machine makers about potential foreign ownership.

Because it is privately owned, ES&S is not legally obligated to reveal its ownership or any other details about its finances, although Burt did confirm that the company generated about $100 million in sales last year.

Image:

A developer and principle architect work on software.Scott Morgan / for NBC News

But in response to questions this year from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, ES&S disclosed which investors own more than 5 percent of the company. They include Burt, Chief Financial Officer Tom O’Brien and the Omaha-based private equity firm McCarthy Group, which owns a controlling interest. The letter identified two passive investors, Nancy McCarthy and Kenneth Stinson, who own stakes of more than 5 percent in McCarthy Group.

ES&S said McCarthy Group’s bylaws prevented it from revealing other individual investors, but it affirmed that they are all U.S. citizens or trusts or corporations owned by Americans. The company offered to pay for an independent auditor to verify that all the investors are Americans. NBC News declined, as citizenship itself wouldn’t answer other potential questions, including political affiliations or other conflicts of interest.

McCarthy Group did not respond to NBC News’ requests for comment.

Testing questions
Virtually no laws govern the cybersecurity aspects of voting machine technologies. But ES&S points to its voluntary efforts to improve voting machine security, most notably a new program with the Energy Department’s Idaho National Labs, the same federal facility that tests the power grid and nuclear power generators. ES&S machines underwent eight weeks of vulnerability testing and penetration by government hackers.

Chris Wlaschin, head of systems security for ES&S, said at a Homeland Security cybersecurity summit in Washington in September that the company’s machines are not prone to a remote attack over the internet. But he added that someone with enough time and access could make a machine “inoperative or unusable.”

Although Wlaschin said the company would release an executive summary of the government testing, the company recently said it has nothing for “external release.” It said recommendations from the tests would be incorporated into “future voting system releases.”

Wyden said he was concerned by the company’s foreign parts supply and was working on legislation to limit it.

“What you have found is particularly important because of the China connection,” he said.

Wyden is also eager to see the Idaho National Lab findings.

“They’re claiming that the Department of Homeland Security has been working with them. I’m going to ask for this information on the basis of your report within 10 days,” he said.

Eddie Perez, global director of technology development for the Open Source Election Technology Institute, a nonprofit election technology research group with which NBC News has partnered since 2016, said the lack of oversight is problematic.

“The way people vote is managed by a couple of entities that people don’t know a lot about, and that creates risks for the country,” he said.

When it comes down to the essentials, voting machine makers “behave based on the level of regulation they have,” Perez said.

“They have to check the boxes,” he added. “But once they’ve done that, they focus on selling their product.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Will Georgia’s new voting machines solve election problems — or make them worse?
Oct 26, 2020 6:30 PM EST

Protecting the American voting process from outside interference is a top priority this election season. But public and political opinion are divided over the best voting systems to prevent tampering. Miles O’Brien takes a look at the latest technology being used in Georgia -- and whether it provides a stronger defense against meddling than the traditional paper ballot.

Read the Full Transcript
  • Judy Woodruff:
    Protecting the voting process from outside interference is a high priority this election season.
    In his latest report, Miles O'Brien looks at some of the latest technology being used in Georgia, and whether it provides a stronger defense against tampering than the traditional paper ballot.
    It's part of our ongoing Leading Edge series on science and innovation.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    In Georgia, early voting turnout is high, the presidential race is a toss-up, and both Senate seats are in play. So, naturally, the political world is nervously watching what voters here will do, while, in the world of computer science, they are tensely tracking what the voting machines will do.

  • J. Alex Halderman:
    Georgia is kind of a petri dish.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    Alex Halderman is a professor of computer science at the University of Michigan.

  • J. Alex Halderman:
    There's a lot more we have to learn about Georgia's election system. And that's going to help inform how to better secure elections, not just in Georgia in November, but across the country for years to come.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    He's among a handful of independent election security experts getting unprecedented access to the inner workings of the state's $107 million voting system rolled out earlier this year.
    Also taking a deep dive? Election security white hat hacker Harri Hursti.

  • Harri Hursti:
    They have set up a complicated system, which is centralized, and doesn't seem to have any safeguards.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    Georgia's vote-tallying system is a complex assortment of laptops, iPads, magnetic cards, touchscreens, printers, and scanners, lots of moving parts.

  • Rick Barron:
    This is the Poll Pads. On Election Day, it is used to check in voters.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    Rick Barron is Fulton County's director of registration and elections. He gave me a demo.

  • Rick Barron:
    It tells whether we issued an absentee-by-mail ballot, whether somebody's voted early, whether they have voted that absentee ballot, or whether they are still eligible to vote.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    Once a voter is deemed eligible, the iPad activates a magnetic card, which in turn unlocks a so-called ballot marking device, or BMD OK.
    This is a pretty complicated way to do something you could do with pen and paper.

  • Rick Barron:
    Yes.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    There are advantages here, right?

  • Rick Barron:
    Yes. The advantages are, it puts a true mark on the screen.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    When done, the voter prints a ballot. Selections are recorded in human readable text and in a Q.R. code, which is read and counted by an optical scanner.
    Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, says this is more accurate than pen and paper.

  • Brad Raffensperger:
    The problem with pen and paper is, sometimes, you have your instructions on what you're supposed to do, but you end up with spoiled ballots.
    Sometimes, people will put an X here, but then they circle this one here, or they will make different marks on it. What did they really mean there?

  • Miles O’Brien:
    Still, elections officials tell us they seldom see a hand-marked ballot where they can't determine voter intent. In 2019, Georgia bought the devices from a Canadian company called Dominion Voting systems.
    They replaced paperless machines like these made by a now defunct company called Diebold Election Systems. A federal judge forced the state to scrap the discredited devices. Election security activist Marilyn Marks was part of the lawsuit that triggered the change. But, for her, ballot-marking devices, now used widely in 14 states, are not the ideal remedy.

  • Marilyn Marks:
    We need paper records that are marked by the voter, with the voter's own hand, where we know that was recorded the way that the voter wanted it recorded.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    So, she and the other plaintiffs took aim at the new voting machines. The lawsuit came into sharp focus after their chaotic debut in the June primary.
    The Poll Pads took as long as 30 hours to download the voter database, displayed the wrong races, and would randomly shut down. And the power-hungry ballot-marking devices blew circuit-breakers in numerous locations.
    Poll workers, many of whom had no hands-on training because of the pandemic, were often befuddled by the new technology.

  • Rick Barron:
    We have learned a lot of lessons. We're putting technicians in every single polling place.
    We have to make sure that not only do the poll workers know how to use the equipment, but then these technicians are then going to be relied upon to fix any issues. We want to just fly under the radar and do our jobs and stay away from the news.
    (LAUGHTER)

  • Miles O’Brien:
    But election experts working for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state have uncovered several troubling issues.
    Alex Halderman looked closely at the Q.R. codes where the votes are encoded for the scanner.

  • J. Alex Halderman:
    By analyzing the structure of the Q.R. codes, I have been able to learn that there's nothing that stops an attacker from just duplicating one, and the duplicate would count the same as the original bar code.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    And in late September, another concern came to light. During testing, election workers found half the names of the 21 candidates for Senate intermittently disappeared from screens during the review phase.
    Dominion sent out a last-minute software patch.

  • J. Alex Halderman:
    I'm worried that the Georgia system is the technical equivalent to the 737 MAX. They have just made a last-minute software change that might well have unintended consequences and cause even more severe problems on Election Day.

  • Harri Hursti:
    You never want to rush something which is mission-critical, and this is mission-critical, into production without proper time for testing.
    That's really one of the ways bad actors are finding the vulnerabilities to exploit is looking for honest vulnerabilities and finding out if they can be weaponized, if they can be exploited.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    Despite all the concerns, federal Judge Amy Totenberg decided to let the election proceed with the ballot marking device system. The secretary of state says post-election audits will bring any Q.R. code discrepancies to light.

  • Brad Raffensperger:
    We're in the process of really continuing to expand the capabilities that we have, so we can audit more of the races. When we do the audit, we actually do it on the human-readable portion, and not on the Q.R. code.

  • Miles O’Brien:
    Alex Halderman and his team at Michigan conducted a mock election to see if voters are likely to catch mistakes on the printouts. Only 7 percent spotted a deliberately planted error. So, double-check your ballot before you scan.
    For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Miles O'Brien in Atlanta.
Watch

https://player.pbs.org/9fe4050a-2991-40e3-b3da-dc530d0bd738 7:09 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Democratic senators warned of potential 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines prior to 2020 election

by Andrew Mark Miller, Social Media Producer

| November 13, 2020 04:48 PM

Four congressional Democrats sent a letter to the owners of Dominion Voting Systems and cited several problems that “threaten the integrity of our elections,” including “vote switching.”

In a December 2019 letter to Dominion Voting Systems, which has been mired in controversy after a human error involving its machines in Antrim County, Michigan, resulted in incorrect counts, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, and Amy Klobuchar and congressman Mark Pocan warned about reports of machines “switching votes,” “undisclosed vulnerabilities,” and “improbable” results that “threaten the integrity of our elections.”
Dominion.️

"These problems threaten the integrity of our elections."

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D), Amy Klobuchar (D) & Ron Wyden (D) issue a formal complaint in 2019 to Dominion Voting Systems.

Among the complaints? Allegations of 'vote-switching.'https://t.co/4MYMNnMUyl pic.twitter.com/og9EwkI4dV
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) November 13, 2020
“In 2018 alone, 'voters in South Carolina [were] reporting machines that switched their votes after they'd inputted them, scanners [were] rejecting paper ballots in Missouri, and busted machines [were] causing long lines in Indiana,'” the letter reads. “In addition, researchers recently uncovered previously undisclosed vulnerabilities in "nearly three dozen backend election systems in 10 states." And, just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received 164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's Republican chairwoman said, "nothing went right on Election Day. Everything went wrong. That's a problem."

The letter continued: “These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.”

Republicans have been probing other counties in Michigan and suggesting the need for investigations into other states where Dominion machines were used.

“Our team is currently reaching out to county clerks across Michigan as well as going through election results in each of the counties which use this software to see how widespread this error may be,” Michigan Republican Party communications director Tony Zammit told the Washington Examiner last weekend.

In Texas, Dominion Voting Systems was rejected three times by experts from the Texas secretary of state and attorney general’s office.

President Trump has openly criticized Dominion as he attempts to challenge voting results across the country, alleging widespread voter fraud and tweeting about the company Friday afternoon.

“Now it is learned that the horrendous Dominion Voting System was used in Arizona (and big in Nevada),” Trump tweeted. “No wonder the result was a very close loss!”
Now it is learned that the horrendous Dominion Voting System was used in Arizona (and big in Nevada). No wonder the result was a very close loss!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2020
Dominion machines are involved in every state where Trump is launching legal fights, but several experts and officials have stated that there is no reason to believe those machines altered the outcome of the election.

“Many of the claims being asserted about Dominion and questionable voting technology is misinformation at best and, in many cases, they’re outright disinformation,” Edward Perez, an election-technology expert at a nonprofit group that studies voting infrastructure, said this week. “I’m not aware of any evidence of specific things or defects in Dominion software that would lead one to believe that votes had been recorded or counted incorrectly.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

About 73% Biden Vote Margin Gain in PA from Areas Given $18 Million by Zuckerberg-Funded ‘Safe Elections’ Project

20,488
Facebook Chief Mark Zuckerberg
PHILIPPE LOPEZ /Getty
MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY19 Nov 20202,576

Seventy-three percent of Joe Biden’s 126,649 vote margin gain in Pennsylvania, compared to Hillary Clinton’s performance in 2016, came from the seven counties and one city in Pennsylvania that received more than $18 million from the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) “safe elections” project.

The CTCL provided more than $18 million in “safe elections” grants between September 1 and October 31 to at least seven counties and one city in Pennsylvania: $10 million to the City of Philadelphia, $2.5 million to Chester County (suburban Philadelphia), $2.2 million to Delaware County (suburban Philadelphia), $2.05 million to Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), $863,000 to Centre County, $474,232 to Lancaster County, $471,000 to Berks County, and $148,000 to Erie County.

Ninety-three thousand two hundred and ninety-three votes (93,293), or 73.6 percent of Biden’s 126,649 vote margin gain in 2020 Pennsylvania, compared to Hillary Clinton in 2016, came from these seven counties and one city.

CTCL has refused to provide a breakdown of funding by counties in any state. Though press reports confirmed the CTCL funding of many of the counties identified by Breitbart as funded by CTCL in Pennsylvania, there was apparently no report in the press or by the CTCL of the $2.5 million grant made to Chester County, unanimously approved by the three member Chester County Commission on September 16, until Breitbart unearthed the details of the minutes of that board meeting. (Notably, the beginning date for the grant as initially approved was September 1, but a subsequent report (see page 37 of an obscure 41 page report of the agenda) for the October 8, 2020 meeting of the Chester County Commission showed the beginning date of the grant as June 1.)
Breitbart News contacted Chester County election officials and requested a breakdown of the use of proceeds of the $2.5 million grant from the CTCL, but has not received a response.

The analysis of the impact of Zuckerberg-funded “safe elections” grants from the CTCL to counties in Pennsylvania is similar to the results of Breitbart’s report of the impact of those funds on the electoral results in Georgia:
Most of Joe Biden’s 221,751 vote margin gain in Georgia, compared to Hillary Clinton’s performance in 2016, came from three metropolitan Atlanta counties that received more than $15 million from the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) “safe elections” project.
Those three counties — Cobb, Fulton, and Gwinnett–accounted for 168,703 of Biden’s 221,751 vote margin gain, or 76 percent.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckeberg and his wife donated $350 million between September 1 and October 31 to the CTCL “safe elections” project, as Breitbart News reported.

Critics say those funds were used to privatize the administration of the 2020 election and help Democrats Get-Out-the-Vote.

Here’s a comparison of how the state and these seven counties and one city voted in 2016 and in 2020: (2020 election results as of 11:00 a.m. ET, Thursday, November 19, as reported by Real Clear Politics)

State of Pennsylvania
2016
Donald Trump: 2,970,733
Hillary Clinton: 2,926,441
Margin of votes for Trump: 44,292

2020
Joe Biden: 3,454,686
Donald Trump: 3,372,329
Margin of votes for Biden: 82,357
Net margin of votes gained by Biden 2020 vs. Hillary Clinton 2016: 126,649

Seven Pennsylvania Counties (plus the City of Philadelphia) That Received $18 Million from Zuckerberg-funded CTCL
Net margin of votes gained by Biden 2020 vs. Hillary Clinton 2016: 93,293, broken down as follows:

Delaware County (suburban Philadelphia)
2016
Hillary Clinton: 177,402
Donald Trump: 110,667
Clinton margin: 66,735

2020
Joe Biden: 206,709
Donald Trump: 118,639
Biden margin: 88,070
Net margin of votes gained by Biden 2020 vs. Hillary Clinton 2016: 21,335

Chester County (suburban Philadelphia)
2016
Hillary Clinton: 141,682
Donald Trump: 116,114
Clinton margin: 25,568

2020
Joe Biden: 182,372
Donald Trump: 128,565
Biden margin: 53,807
Net margin of votes gained by Biden 2020 vs. Hillary Clinton 2016: 28,239

Allegheny County (Pittsburgh)
2016
Hillary Clinton: 367,617
Donald Trump: 259,480
Clinton margin: 108,137

2020
Joe Biden: 429,065
Donald Trump: 282,324
Biden margin: 146,741
Net margin of votes gained by Biden 2020 vs. Hillary Clinton 2016: 38,604

Centre County

2016
Hillary Clinton: 37,088
Donald Trump: 35,274
Clinton margin: 1,814

2020
Joe Biden: 40,054
Donald Trump: 36,371
Biden margin: 3,683
Net margin of votes gained by Biden 2020 vs. Hillary Clinton 2016: 1,869


Lancaster County

2016
Hillary Clinton: 91,093
Donald Trump: 137,914
Trump margin: 46,821

2020
Joe Biden: 115,847
Donald Trump: 160,209
Trump margin: 44,362
Net margin of votes gained by Biden 2020 vs. Hillary Clinton 2016: 2,459

Berks County

2016
Hillary Clinton: 78,437
Donald Trump: 96,626
Trump margin: 18,189

2020
Joe Biden: 93,113
Donald Trump: 109,917
Trump margin: 16,804
Net margin of votes gained by Biden 2020 vs. Hillary Clinton 2016: 1,385

Erie County

2016
Hillary Clinton: 58,112
Donald Trump: 60,069
Trump margin: 1,957

2020
Joe Biden: 68,286
Donald Trump: 66,869
Biden margin: 1,417
Net margin of votes gained by Biden 2020 vs. Hillary Clinton 2016: 3,374

City of Philadelphia
2016
Hillary Clinton: 584,025
Donald Trump: 108,748
Clinton margin: 475,277

2020
Joe Biden: 604,175
Donald Trump: 132,870
Biden margin: 471,305
Net margin of votes gained by Biden 2020 vs. Hillary Clinton 2016: – 3,972 (negative 3,972)

Of the eight local governments in Pennsylvania that received grants from CTCL, only one–the City of Philadelphia–saw a decline in Joe Biden’s electoral results versus Donald Trump’s in 2020 compared to Hillary Clinton’s electoral results versus Donald Trump’s in 2016.
 

TheDoberman

Veteran Member
Ladies and Gents. I have been all over Twitter this morning. There are thousands and thousands of good Patriots working on this election fraud and making amazing connections. I don't think they can hide what they've done. It's all falling down. They know it too. That's why they've been trying to delete things, but the hordes of investigative patriots have been saving and linking everything. I also think the deep state and possibly the Soro's of the world have been rigging elections for decades. I've always wondered why the demon Angela Merkel continues to stay in power when she is hated by her own country. This may just be a world wide fall of the elites. Let's pray this continues until all is revealed.
 

frazbo

Veteran Member
Ladies and Gents. I have been all over Twitter this morning. There are thousands and thousands of good Patriots working on this election fraud and making amazing connections. I don't think they can hide what they've done. It's all falling down. They know it too. That's why they've been trying to delete things, but the hordes of investigative patriots have been saving and linking everything. I also think the deep state and possibly the Soro's of the world have been rigging elections for decades. I've always wondered why the demon Angela Merkel continues to stay in power when she is hated by her own country. This may just be a world wide fall of the elites. Let's pray this continues until all is revealed.

And this is what Trump is really up against. We all know it's not just about Trump vs Biden. We all know it's good vs evil...but not just in our country. Why has/is so much foreign money being used to fight against Trump in the US? Because they are ALL in on it and have been for generations. Here, now, is the culmination of what they've done. Trump knew this coming into the 2016 election. It isn't just about stolen votes in America...it's all over the world and when it's legally proven, it will affect the rest of the world. They will also have their "we've had enough of you politicians lying, cheating and stealing from us" moments.

Hence, the reason why I cut Trump alot of slack. He knows this will affect the whole world when he's done. It has not been an easy task for the past four years, but he stayed on point and here we are today...but it's still not over. You know, I know, the whole world knows the Dem's and deep state around the world will come back with a vengeance and I'm pretty sure Trump has a plan for that also, but in the meantime, it's gonna be bad. Pray, stick close to your families and know this will not be solved overnight but it will end...but it will end...by the grace of God.
 

Blacknarwhal

Let's Go Brandon!
Ladies and Gents. I have been all over Twitter this morning. There are thousands and thousands of good Patriots working on this election fraud and making amazing connections. I don't think they can hide what they've done. It's all falling down. They know it too. That's why they've been trying to delete things, but the hordes of investigative patriots have been saving and linking everything. I also think the deep state and possibly the Soro's of the world have been rigging elections for decades. I've always wondered why the demon Angela Merkel continues to stay in power when she is hated by her own country. This may just be a world wide fall of the elites. Let's pray this continues until all is revealed.

The notion that Trump could prove the election was a cheat, get it vacated, and stay in power is a welcome one.

It also looks like it would serve the Deep State as the sudden rug-pull under the Sky Screamers would likely spark them to violence. It would also do well to explain why this particular theft was so ham-fisted that "thousands and thousands of good Patriots" on Twitter could spot it.
 
Entire Newsmax interview:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68pEknYyCM

RT 20:40
Sidney Powell: It will be BIBLICAL
1,807,809 views
•Nov 21, 2020

Newsmax TV
1.51M subscribers

Frontline member of the Trump legal team Sidney Powell comments exclusively on the claims that are going to be made in the legal battle to come over the presidential election results. - with political analyst Mark Halperin and Newsmax TV's Rob Schmitt
===
.
 

TKO

Veteran Member
I keep getting these texts from the Georgia Democrat party. Just got some yesterday. "Did you receive your mail in ballot...Type 1 YES Type 2 NO. Type 3 STOP". I played along and said I got it. Then, they texted me back saying they were going to send me another ballot anyway and to be looking for it in the mail. What the heck? I don't even live in Georgia.
 

Pinecone

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I keep getting these texts from the Georgia Democrat party. Just got some yesterday. "Did you receive your mail in ballot...Type 1 YES Type 2 NO. Type 3 STOP". I played along and said I got it. Then, they texted me back saying they were going to send me another ballot anyway and to be looking for it in the mail. What the heck? I don't even live in Georgia.
I hope you are documenting this!
 

Pinecone

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I still have the texts. Where would I document such?
I would archive the texts, keep notes on how you responded and if you do get a ballot, I'm sure there is someone from the Trump Team, Elections, Homeland Security, FBI (or not) etc. who would be interested.

Please let us know if you get a ballot. Inquiring minds, and all that. And maybe, someone on here who knows a whole lot more than I do can help direct you to whom you should direct a complaint.
 

TKO

Veteran Member
I would archive the texts, keep notes on how you responded and if you do get a ballot, I'm sure there is someone from the Trump Team, Elections, Homeland Security, FBI (or not) etc. who would be interested.

Please let us know if you get a ballot. Inquiring minds, and all that. And maybe, someone on here who knows a whole lot more than I do can help direct you to whom you should direct a complaint.
Attaching the texts here. (I can't get them to stop sending me stuff. In the past, I have blocked numbers and then another number texts me like this. I respond STOP, or write and say I don't want these texts. They won't quit.)
 

Attachments

  • GA Dem Text 1.JPG
    GA Dem Text 1.JPG
    111.6 KB · Views: 28
  • GA Dem Text 2.JPG
    GA Dem Text 2.JPG
    53.3 KB · Views: 30
  • GA Dem Text 3.JPG
    GA Dem Text 3.JPG
    121.5 KB · Views: 23
  • GA Dem Text 4.JPG
    GA Dem Text 4.JPG
    111.7 KB · Views: 22

vector7

Dot Collector
Sidney Powell: 35,000 Votes Were Added to Every Democrat Candidate - I'd Be Willing to Bet It Happened Everywhere
Sidney Powell: GA is going to blow up with fraud.
Sidney Powell: It will be BIBLICAL
Then I saw that the lines of data were all headed towards Washington DC. From there it looked like the city had these octopus arms and they and they were trying to fight to disconnect the data lines. What I assume was they were trying to keep the explosive power of the system shutting down from hitting Washington DC.

So these octopus arms came out and they were trying to disconnect the systems, but there was one that just kept flashing was kept building up pulses it seemed bigger and more extreme carrying more data more information than the other the other lines I’d seen in like the interstate area before.

Though there were people wearing suits and ties this was business attire. I saw Justices, it was not necessarily Supreme Court Justice. I didn’t see faces, but I saw judges. I saw people in suit and tie, business attire...professional business and they were trying to basically pull this line out of Washington DC to keep it from blowing up, or whatever they were trying to pull this line away from the city, to no avail.

This thing kept going, it finally blew up because all the connections went to the capitol building that’s exactly where it was going to the Capitol Building it finally blew up and the building.

It literally cracked in half.

So I’ve seen the Liberty Bell crack in half and now I saw the Capitol Building crack in half. And it issues this huge smoke cloud as the smoke goes into the air...it creates a word, and that word was 'Discovery'.

Discovery was the word that was then in the air so you got the you got the halls of congress cracked in half. You’ve got the smoke just building up in a spelling this word out in the sky which is the word 'Discovery'.

It’s not it’s not like smoke is dissipating or clouds...it stays there in the sky.

And there are people that they’re running now, they’re not running from the explosion, they’re running from the word they see in the sky which was 'Discovery'...
 
Top