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

marsh

On TB every waking moment

REPORT: Pelosi’s ‘Conversations’ With Sgt At Arms Responsible For Lack Of National Guard On January 6
pelosi
Former Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving’s discussions with Nancy Pelosi factored into his “blender of decision making” to delay deploying the National Guard at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, according to reports from the Daily Caller.

“Pelosi’s office had previously impressed upon Irving that the National Guard was to remain off Capitol Grounds, Irving allegedly told House Admin,” the article summarized.

The article’s sources – three individuals “with direct knowledge of Irving’s talk with House Admin” – also revealed the discussions centered around “optics” and “occurred in the months prior to the Jan. 6 riot.”

The article also discredits the timeline provided by Pelosi’s office, which alleges that she approved the deployment of the national guard around 1:43 pm despite Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund saying he was contacted about the matter after 2:00 pm.

“If you believe Irving’s timeline that he testified under oath to, how could he ask for permission from the Speaker 20 minutes before he got the request?” a source question.

“Also if you believe his sworn testimony that he never had to run the request up the chain, why did the Speaker’s office confirm he did just that?” they continued.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Capitol Mystery: New Evidence Likely Clears MAGA of “Murder” Charge
February 27, 2021 (40m ago)

2021.02.28-12.11-revolvernews-603adfabd1a43.jpg

ATTENTION NEWS JUNKIES: We are the new Drudge, click here for the News Feed

Within hours of Revolver’s analysis yesterday of failures to disclose 1/6 evidence that Federal officials still owe the American public, an important new leak of unofficial information was circulated by The New York Times concerning Officer Brian Sicknick’s death.

On the one hand, the American public should be encouraged to receive long-awaited word on a high priority case that has taken longer to locate a suspect than it has to find and charge more than 300 criminal defendants. For reference, only 800 people entered the Capitol that day, and files have been opened on 540 suspects, so the universe of “unidentified assailants” belongs to an ever-shrinking universe.

On the other hand, as discussed below, these revelations raise as many questions as they bring answers.

Assuming their veracity, however, they fully vindicate MAGA of the original “Blood Libel” murder charge that antagonists have sought for seven straight weeks to pin on the tens of millions of supporters of the 45th President, which sins would pass down the generations and history books concerning the events of 1/6.

Bear Spray Theory Redux

According to the New York Times, the FBI has made “a significant breakthrough on the case,” pinpointing a single unidentified assailant as the prime suspect. That suspect was evidently seen on video spraying irritant at officers and discussing attacking the officers with the irritant beforehand.

2021.02.27-11.53-revolvernews-603adb96afa93.png


It is unclear if the New York Times intended to definitively imply the irritant was “bear spray” when their own FBI sources said only “irritant” in the paragraph above and the authors speak generally of “irritants” below.

Above:
2021.02.27-11.55-revolvernews-603adbe3f28ae.png


Below:
2021.02.27-11.55-revolvernews-603adbee36537.png

The credibility of the New York Times being so low, we cannot rule out the possibility that the article’s authors simply used “bear spray” and “irritant” interchangeably, leaving uninformed readers to assume that “bear spray” was the culprit.

We still don’t have the toxicology report, which by now even the Washington Post is acknowledging is “unusual after 7 weeks,” so the truth is anyone’s guess.

But while taking the time to inform readers about different classes of irritants, the New York Times casually leaves out that bear spray is actually significantly less dangerous and more humane than pepper spray, and is indeed the tamest class of nonlethal crowd control irritants. So at best, the New York Times was being sloppy and bad journalists. At worst, they were deliberately deceptive, hoped you didn’t notice, and just deceitful primed you with the image of a snarling “bear” to insinuate the most lethal, aggressive or primal intent.

As discussed in a compelling account by a 30-year law enforcement veteran:

2021.02.27-11.56-revolvernews-603adc27a62f7.png


Recall that multiple hours after the protest had already concluded, Sicknick texted his own brother Ken that he was basically fine, other than being “pepper sprayed twice,” confirming he was safe and “in good shape.”

Nevertheless, the definitive culprit “bear spray” has spread mockingbird-like through CNN, CBS, the DailyMail, the Sun, Yahoo, high low and everywhere you go, until we’re back in Gaslight Groundhog’s Ground.

The Unidentified Assailant

It is unclear why the “unnamed assailant” is still unidentified. On the one hand, an eerily similar case concerning a protester spraying a large group of police officers and admitting it on video was also just unsealed yesterday.

2021.02.27-11.49-revolvernews-603adaa1b178a.png


But that defendant made his remarks on camera about the spraying event after that had taken place, rather than beforehand, as the New York Times’s sources allege.

If the FBI has not named the suspect because they simply cannot find him yet, it is mindboggling that they would continue to issue “WANTED” posters on bus stops and Twitter for random teenage girls, while the key Sicknick suspect remains outstanding. Just two days ago, the FBI posted:

2021.02.27-11.47-revolvernews-603ad9fb9a2d4.png


How strange. The FBI has crowd-sourced intelligence to the general public for virtually every other suspect of the Capitol siege. Why not release the “breakthrough” video and have the public help locate this suspect too?

Anonymous Sources


While it may turn out to be true that the FBI has identified the irritant perpetrator, it is disconcerting to see the speed at which this story is becoming accepted as Gospel Truth by media faithful. Both the FBI and the Department of Justice have formally denied comment on the story. That means the entire claim rests on two anonymous law enforcement officials leaking unofficial rumors to the New York Times. That’s exactly how we got the MAGA Blood Libel “fire extinguisher” hoax to begin with.

Recall:
2021.02.27-11.51-revolvernews-603adb0feeeb8.jpg

And now:

2021.02.27-11.51-revolvernews-603adae4b8a13.png

Hope it’s not the same two sources!

At any rate, if the New York Times report is to be trusted, it is a total vindication for the MAGA movement on the charge of brutal, bloody murder. It would render the official charge of the House Trial Memorandum, on whose basis President Trump was successfully impeached at the House of Representatives level, a total, thorough, shameful, dirty lie.

A gruesome murder by a bloodthirsty mob would be reduced to:
  • A nonlethal charge (prosecutors pursuing assault rather than murder);
  • A nonlethal weapon (irritant spray);
  • A nonlethal intent (indiscriminate release at large group of officers);
  • A nonlethal incident (victim in good shape multiple hours after);
  • Turned somehow lethal by extremely unusual, highly atypical medical complications.
It is one more reminder that the Official Narrative about 1/6 cannot be allowed to become sacred before it can become challenged. We are fortunate to have busted the New York Times’s MAGA Blood Libel lie so early in the process. Had it taken months or years to go unchecked, reopening the issue would have had to painfully open long-sutured public and personal wounds.

In the following installment, our investigation pursues lingering questions about the curious role of the FBI in separate aspects of the 1/6 story, such as how the “armed insurrectionists” became “armed.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Contact Arizona Senate and Demand They Audit All Arizona Ballots (Not Just Images) For Validity – They Have Only One Chance to Get It Right for America

By Joe Hoft
Published February 27, 2021 at 5:30pm
433201D9-9F1D-48C9-9C7A-39AC1FD4987D-600x338.jpeg

The courts have agreed with the Arizona Senate – They have the right to obtain and audit the ballots returned and counted in the 2020 election.


Big Media won’t report it. Big Tech will censor you if you report it. The DOJ won’t prosecute it, in part because the FBI won’t investigate it, but ELECTION FRAUD WAS RAMPANT ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

Americans are livid and want to get to the bottom of it. We want to know the truth about the results of the 2020 election.

In Arizona, for months the Board of Supervisors in Maricopa County have complained about calls for a forensic review of the ballots in that large and important county. The Board members claim everything was fine but they won’t allow anyone to get close to their results.

They spent weeks after the election messing with ballots before they formally came to a conclusion on the election results.

Finally, the Board of Supervisors relented, after suing the Senate in an effort to prevent a competent audit, and said that there could be an audit if performed by auditors of THEIR choice. They claimed the two firms they selected were EAC certified but they weren’t. These same firms are the firms that certified the controversial Dominion voting systems around the country before and after the election.


The Arizona Senate said they would select auditors to perform the audit of the county themselves. They have a right to do it and the ruling from the judge has given them the ability to do it. Now the question is which entity to select to perform the audit.

One firm thought to be considered is a firm related to Colonel Phil Waldron who presented a couple of months ago on the voting systems being used in the state. His team no doubt can do an excellent job on the workings of the machines and determine if they do comply with standards set in the industry. His forensic audit will no doubt far surpass the audit work by the two firms who were said to be certified by the Board of Supervisors.

But this still will leave open the question of how many total ballots were fraudulent. Here is where the work of inventor Jovan Pulitzer would be best served. Pulitzer has a process and the patents surrounding the process where he can identify fraudulent ballots based on the paper used, creases in the paper, the ink on the forms, and other characteristics. Pulitzer can identify fraudulent votes which then will ultimately result in the accurate results of the 2020 election when only valid votes are accounted for.

Pulitzer explained his process in Georgia previously:

View: https://youtu.be/rrxfzoZRyao
47:44 min

We have written about Jovan Pulitzer’s ballot audit process and believe this is the best of all alternatives. Pulitzer can audit all the ballots and identify those that are invalid. The Democrats are totally frightened of what this will uncover because they know their final state results include invalid ballots.

The Arizona Senate is doing more than any other state currently to address the people’s number one concern – what are the true results of the 2020 election. Please encourage them to ensure all the ballots are reviewed in Maricopa County through a legitimate, comprehensive, and accurate forensic audit.


We hear that the Senate is not comfortable in some ways with Pulitzer, not his methods. Our suggestion is to go for the best audit available – the Jovan Pulitzer method.

** Please encourage the Senators in Arizona to ensure all the ballots in Maricopa County are forensically reviewed to determine their validity. This really must be done. Here is a list of Arizona Senators to contact.

These Senators need to know the American people want a full and fair audit of results from 2020 to ensure fair and free elections into the future.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

“I Don’t Think There’s a More Important Issue than Election Integrity” – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Will Address Election Integrity at GOP Attorneys General Meeting Next Week (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published February 27, 2021 at 8:49pm
paxton-bannon-war-room.jpg

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joined Steve Bannon on The War Room on Saturday morning.

Paxton spoke about how we must ensure fair and lawful elections in the future of this country after the 2020 debacle.

The Texas AG is going to address election integrity with the GOP Attorneys General at their annual meeting this coming week.
Steve Bannon: Attorney General Paxton, you’ve been a great supporter of President Trump, what are you looking forward to tomorrow? As you anticipate that speech what would you like to hear him say as part of that speech? What are things you would be particularly looking for and you think our audience ought to look for?

AG Ken Paxton: I think there’s still a vacuum of leadership in the Republican Party with him out. And I think people are still looking at him. He’s still the most popular Republican in the United States. He’s the person who so many grassroots people look to for a vision. I would encourage him to cast a vision. Where he thinks we ought to go, going as a party, going as a country. And address things like election fraud. Address things like what’s going on with the tech companies…
Steve Bannon: Look you mention election integrity there. That’s one of the huge topics we focus on every day whether it’s from Georgia or Pennsylvania. Given that Texas knows how to run an election. Given that you’re the guy that said, “No Dominion Election Systems. We’re not interested…” And you were the leader in the lawsuit that should have gone forward, right? You took the leadership of that. Are you prepared, are you working with other states to help them get sorted? Particularly in Georgia and Pennsylvania which were a nightmare and Arizona. Where you’ve seen leadership in those parties back off from taking leadership. Are you Ken Paxton reaching out to people? Are you there in CPAC saying, “Hey we know how Texas can take the lead in this.”

Ken Paxton: Yes, so I’m talking to whoever I can. I’m talking to leaders all over the country. We got a meeting of Republican Attorneys General coming up this week where I’m going to address the very issue you’re talking about. I don’t think there’s a more important issue than election integrity because if we go forward with what happened in this last election Americans will never know whether our elections are credible. And that destroys a democracy and puts us in positions more like Venezuela than it does the America we all know and love.
Steve Bannon: Well this is on Mitch McConnell. 300,000 didn’t show up in Georgia… I’ve been giving talks to CPAC crowds all week. If you don’t show them you can sort out November 3rd and they don’t believe you’ve sorted it out, don’t ask for their money in 2022. Twenty percent of the MAGA movement and the media knows this… Every legal vote counts, every certifiable vote counts. Every chain of custody vote counts. If we show that we’re going to get 100% of the people out to vote.
Via the Bannon War Room:
Rumble video on website 48:53 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Report: Pelosi’s Anti-Conservative Security Specialist Recommends $100 Million in New Officers and Fencing

By Jack Davis, The Western Journal
Published February 28, 2021 at 7:30am

A reported review of Capitol Hill security from retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore has revealed that Congress will be told it needs 1,000 more Capitol Police officers and additional barriers outside the Capitol, culminating at a cost of $100 million.

The man who has been labeled an “anti-Trump general” has reportedly deemed the massive security presence necessary around what has already been dubbed “Fort Pelosi.”

According to anonymous sources reported by CNN, the retired officer who was hand-picked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has written up a draft of proposal
recommendations on how to address security issues that were highlighted during the Jan. 6 incursion into the Capitol.
Today, Capitol Police responded to Nancy Pelosi’s decision to put a partisan in charge of a security review from Jan 6 – an individual who has suggested Capitol Police helped the rioters. Russel Honore should be removed pic.twitter.com/V5w1EICOML
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) February 23, 2021
The report will allegedly also call for more walls and fences around Capitol Hill and its environs.

Among the 1,000 Capitol Police officers that Honore wants added will be 350 to protect members of Congress and staff in their regional districts, CNN reported. The outlet cited as its sources unnamed individuals “with knowledge of the findings.”

An armed intervention force of National Guard members should be created and based near Capitol Hill, according to the draft report. The report purportedly calls for what CNN described as “a National Guard military police battalion to be on standby in Washington full time.”

CNN added that although there is a clear focus on short-term protection of the Capitol through fences in the report, the extent of the longer-term use of walls and fences to block off Capitol Hill was uncertain.
I’d like to see a big group of patriots all gather Peacefully in front of the wall around the capitol with mega-phones and all shout repeatedly,
“Mrs. Pelosi, Tear Down This Wall”!#PelosiTearDownThisWall
— Roger McEntyre (@RogerMcEntyre) February 27, 2021
Pelosi’s Capitol security: $100 million for officers, more walls to keep out 75 million white supremacists Pelosi's Capitol security: $100 million for officers, more walls to keep out 75 million white supremacists
— Deenie (@deenie7940) February 27, 2021
Acting Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman said this week that there is no timetable for replacing the current fencing put up in January.

She also would not give a date when National Guard troops in Washington will be sent home.
Bring our troops home from Fort Pelosi! https://t.co/pbDGgXvt0G
— It’s all in the Plumbing folks (@rdeoliv777) February 27, 2021
“We have no intention of keeping the National Guard soldiers or that fencing any longer than what is actually needed. We’re actively working with a scaled down approach so that we can make sure that we address three primary variables,” Pittman said during a security hearing, according to CNN.

“One is the known threat to the environment, two is the infrastructure vulnerabilities and then that third variable being the limitations the US Capitol’s police knows that it has as it relates to human capital and technology resources.”

Lack of a timetable irked Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, according to The Hill.

“What I didn’t hear on the call was, obviously everything depends on conditions, but I think there should be sort of a general plan of, ‘we think we’ll come back to some normal by X day and if circumstances change we’ll have to change,'” Kaine said.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Another Bogus Fact Check: Liberal Leaning “Fact-Checker” Claims Hundreds of Thousands of Ballots Dumped on Election Night for Biden and Ratio Reporting After That Were Completely Normal

By Joe Hoft
Published February 28, 2021 at 11:20am
C0BCB5D9-AD22-4006-9904-56EADD734586-600x329.jpeg


If you don’t know that ‘fact checkers’ are used by the left and Big Tech to slander and censor conservative messages then you just aren’t up to speed. That’s their mission.

We get this every day because we are successful and trustworthy in our reporting and the communist Democrats hate it. They hate it when their lies and corrupt acts are spelled out in print or in the Big Media. Cheaters, liars, and thieves always hate getting caught.

In November we reported on a situation in multiple states where late on Election Night, in the early morning hours, hundreds of thousands of ballots were dropped for Joe Biden.

Then after that point, nearly every reporting of the election results were reported at the same ratio. We created a short video to make this point.

Rumble video on website 3:35 min

Of course, the Democrats couldn’t let it stand so they came out with bogus articles and arguments trying to justify the obvious questionable acts right in front of us.

One such entity was factcheck.org. They posted an article where they addressed the drop and roll along with other reported potential election fraud events.

Hundreds of thousands of votes dropped for Biden Election Night

After arguing that states routinely stop counting like was done on Election Night (which was nonsense to suggest what was done this election in swing states was normal), the fact-checker next claimed the following about the large ballot drops that occurred for Biden Election Night:
Claim: “Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.”
Facts: This vague claim could either be suggesting that votes were switched (a conspiracy theory we’ve repeatedly debunked and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has said is false) or that the mail-in ballots counted after Election Day were illegitimate.

Neither is true.

Since we’ve already addressed the vote-switching conspiracy theories, we’ll focus on the ballot-box stuffing suggestion.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some states made voting by mail easier in 2020. Most states normally don’t start counting mail-in ballots until Election Day, and mail-in ballots tend to favor Democrats in presidential elections. Also, in the run-up to the election, President Donald Trump repeatedly discouraged their use.

So there’s nothing unusual about post-Election Day votes favoring Biden.
The Spectator story might have oversold the degree to which those votes favored Biden, though.

In two swing states that keep track of the type of ballot cast for each candidate, Biden garnered more mail-in votes than Trump, but he didn’t win 90% of them. In Pennsylvania, Biden won 76% of the mail-in vote. In Georgia, he won 65% of the absentee mail-in vote.

Also, CISA has weighed in on two types of ballot-box stuffing claims, explaining that states have a variety of measures to protect against the submission of counterfeit mail-in ballots and that the number of overseas military ballots is so small — fewer than 1,000 in most states — that an influx would be easily detectable.
TGP rebuttal:

This is perhaps the weakest response to an issue ever made by a fake fact-checker, and here’s why:
  1. We addressed the issue of votes being switched by pointing out that Dominion voting machines have a ‘weighted race’ feature. We reported on the ‘weighted race feature’ embedded in Dominion machines and received no answer from Dominion. Most likely they haven’t debunked this issue. We also won’t address here their claims that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is an agency that can be trusted or that mail-in ballots received after election day were legitimate. These too are major issues to be addressed separately.
  2. When the fact-checker finally addresses the issue of the hundreds of thousands of votes dropping early in the morning after Election night they state that there were many more absentee ballots due to COVID. We really don’t know that. There was no study that we know of where they prove this argument. They don’t cite their source. Maybe there were more votes due to cheating by Democrats, isn’t that just as plausible?
  3. But their overall argument is silly. They are attempting to say all the ballots that were dropped early in the morning of November 4th were all related to absentee ballots. We really don’t know that. How do they know that? We only know that hundreds of thousands of votes were reported early the next morning. These votes were nearly all for Biden. In Virginia, there were 330,000 votes dropped three times and two were reversed (which again makes no sense) but the fact-checker says “So there’s nothing unusual about post-Election Day votes favoring Biden.” What garbage!
  4. Next, the fact-checker says some things about absentee ballots and the CISA. That was it! There was no argument that ballots were dropped in large amounts. There was no rationale for how this makes sense in such massive quantities for Biden. This is because it doesn’t make sense and is, therefore, likely election fraud.
After the vote drops the remaining votes come in patterns all giving Biden the same percentage of votes always higher than President Trump

Later the ‘fact checker’ made this claim about the ‘roll’ part of the ‘drop and roll’:
Claim: “Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simply human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.”

Facts: There was no anomaly.
The claim appears to be based on a post from the Gateway Pundit, a partisan website, which published data it characterized as “inconceivable” and indicative of “fraud.”
The data showed that, as the Spectator story says, Biden maintained a lead with 50.05% of the vote while Trump held 49.95% over the course of about an hour of ballot counting in Georgia.
But that’s to be expected, Charleen Adams, a research fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told FactCheck.org in an interview.

“What they’re calling an anomaly is statistically normal,” Adams said. She examined similar claims that misinterpreted the same type of data about other states.

In the Georgia example, the data — for which Gateway Pundit didn’t disclose the source — shows information for batches of ballots counted on the night of Nov. 6.

That’s three days after the election, when most of the counting was complete. With cumulative data like this, it’s normal to see small differences in the percent shares of votes between candidates at that late point in the process, Adams explained.

In contrast to the earlier days of counting — when there are relatively few votes included in the total and there can be wide fluctuations in the lead or deficit held by a certain candidate as new batches of ballots are counted — the later days show the cumulative, almost complete vote total when the margins between the candidates have tightened and each new batch of ballots has a shrinking impact on the total balance.

The Gateway Pundit data shows tallies from one of the later days, when 89% of Georgia’s ballots had been counted and each new batch of votes did little to shift the already established balance.

“So, there’s not an anomaly in the data,” Adams said. “They’ve misinterpreted cumulative data.”
TGP rebuttal:

The entire rebuttal for this case comes from a fellow at Harvard, Ms. Adams. Her response shows why parents should never send their children to institutions like Harvard. Here’s why:

Ms. Adams’ overriding assumption is that there is no fraud and therefore these numbers are “normal”. But what she doesn’t consider is what if there is fraud? If there is fraud then the same activities would not be considered normal.

Ms. Adams doesn’t address the fact that votes aren’t reported as individual votes (integers) but as percents when being supplied to the media. This method is used across the country for reporting. This allows for vote manipulation.

The percents of votes for each candidate and total votes are the only values provided in the reporting data. Therefore, to determine the number of votes for each candidate you have to multiply the total number of votes by the candidate’s percentage of votes. To determine the number of votes in each reporting period for each candidate you must subtract the total number of calculated votes for each candidate from the prior reporting period from the current reporting period and the difference is the change in votes. This entire method provides for vote manipulation. This major key point is not addressed by Ms. Adams. Why are we reporting votes in a national election as percents rather than as whole numbers?

Here is an example we provided from Virginia:


Below is what was reported for Virginia on election night through the New York Times/Edison election data feed. Total Votes and %Trump and %Biden are basically all that were provided. President Trump was way ahead until the middle of the night when three 300,000 ballot dumps for Biden occurred with two dumps being reversed. (There is no logical reason for these entries – they appear to be fraudulent activities of providing Biden the lead). Overall 851,000 votes were added to Biden’s totals and only 318,000 were awarded to President Trump between 11:14 pm (Eastern) on November 3rd and 5:00 am November 4th. This resulted in over half a million more votes net and 73% of the votes going to Biden during this timeframe.

Virginia-Election-from-11-to-4-am-11-3-and-11-4-600x221.jpg


After these crazy entries, Biden was given the lead. After that point, nearly every vote recorded was at the same percent as noted below:

Virginia-Election-from-11-4-5am-to-11-7-600x564.jpg


Here’s where Ms. Adams is wrong. She never even considers that recording and reporting votes by percentages is reasonable! She ignores this and claims, “So, there’s not an anomaly in the data,” Adams said. “They’ve misinterpreted cumulative data.” Why are we using this method in the first place?

It’s also highly suspect that the votes recorded after the large ballot drop in Virginia of half a million votes net for Biden were at the same ratio. Three entries were negative votes for both candidates, but mostly for President Trump. The only way this could happen would be if voters returned to their precincts and asked to change their votes and this just doesn’t happen in the real world. By reporting all the votes at the same percentage late in the counting, the result is not normal and the real counts are hidden in the manipulated percent of votes recorded.

The most obvious observation of the way the votes are recorded is not related to the ‘cumulative data’ method, it’s why the hell are we doing this in the first place?

Unfortunately, we have to rate this fact-check as fake – again.

Fact-Check-False.jpg
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Why The Capitol Riot Terrified The Elites

SATURDAY, FEB 27, 2021 - 23:30
Authored by James Ketler via The Mises Institute,

These days, it sure looks like they have them right where they want them. Using the storming of the Capitol Building as a pretext, the media-government alliance has targeted Trump, his supporters, and their fellow travelers harder than ever before. Many on the right consider the January 6 storming to have been a dream come true for the leftist elite—giving them the ability to impeach Trump again, deplatform right-wingers, and weaponize the Justice Department against the establishment’s foes. Everything, though, may not be as it first seems. There’s no reason to be despondent or worry that the Left has sealed its ultimate victory—it has done no such thing. Rather, the storming, for what it's worth, proved the power of ragtag populists and exposed the elite’s shaky foundations. There’s a reason they’re so terrified.


What Happened?

In political discourse, narratives are everything, so - quite predictably - there’s heated dispute over what actually happened on January 6. One pressing question is: How did the stormers manage to actually break into the Capitol—one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world? Cell phones and social media allowed civilian attendants to document the day’s events, which has made some details clearer and others a bit murkier. From freelance journalist Marcus DiPaola, one particularly bizarre video emerged which appeared to show Capitol Police willingly removing barricades to allow rioters inside the building complex.

In response to that footage, many leftists contend that the storming was an attempted “coup” and “inside job” planned by Republican politicians and Capitol Hill officials to reinstall Trump for a second term. Of course, that’s nothing more than baseless media drivel. Had it been an actual coup, the storming would have been far bloodier and better orchestrated, with rogue military units and politicians leading the charge—but nothing like that happened.

On the other hand, after seeing the questionable footage, many right-wingers have alleged that the event was a “false flag” arranged by Antifa provocateurs to defame Trump and his supporters. To the credit of this theory, at least one far-left activist was arrested in connection with the storming. However, it’s not clear that Antifa had any role in drumming up the crowd’s furor; certainly, the antielitist spirit was strong enough on its own.

Strange as the video was, there’s a third potential explanation, expounded by PolitiFact: “Many officers had to abandon their posts and barricades because they were far outnumbered and overwhelmed.” Marcus DiPaola, who shot the footage, floated the same explanation, as did former Capitol Police chief Terrance Gainer. The police’s limited manpower was no match for the immensity of the Trumpian mob, leaving the officers in fear for their own safety and their posts strategically indefensible. A panoply of additional on-the-ground footage reveals the brutish tactics many of the rioters used to gain access to the building. They openly ripped away barricades, scaled walls, broke windows and doors—and once inside, used their collective force to push back the officers who tried to “hold the line.” If nothing else, this shows, in physical terms, how frustrated the populist right has become with the federal establishment.

As is true of most mass spontaneous action, the stormers seem to have had different reasons for doing what they did.
Some may have hoped to interrupt the Senate’s session and pressure lawmakers into blocking some of Biden’s electoral votes. Others likely stormed the building as an act of antiestablishment desecration, whipped up by the rage of other rioters. Apparently, there was also a small group of extremists who called for Mike Pence’s execution, according to reports. Indeed, the stormers were a far-from-perfect lot, but—aside from a couple crazies here and there—they were driven by an opposition to the federal establishment shared by millions of Americans.

The People Hold the Power

After five years of shameless anti-Trump witch hunts, culminating in an election fraught with vote irregularities, the events of January 6 should be little surprise. When legal, political methods of seeking redress from the state become unresponsive, there is no longer any choice but to seek extralegal, nonpolitical methods. Trump himself understands this. In one of his final tweets before being suspended, he wrote: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.” These tensions, in fact, existed long before the Trump era. Disheartened by decades of increasing federal abuse, these people stood up in an anti-Swamp rebellion aiming to “take back the people’s house.”

This reflects an immutable principle of government outlined by the sixteenth-century French libertarian Étienne de La Boétie: “[T]he inhabitants themselves … permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude.” It may appear that the state holds power over the people, but in reality the converse is true; it is the people en bloc who—by choosing to obey or not obey—hold ultimate power over the state. The only way a state can enforce its laws at all is if the people overall acquiesce to it. If sufficiently widespread, political resistance would disrupt the status quo to such a degree as to render its function completely ineffectual. In the final analysis, it is the people who hold the power.

A Catalyst for More Resistance

After stirring up a great deal of chaos, the Capitol stormers were flushed out of the building over the course of a few hours and the riots outside were broken up. Early the next morning, Congress certified the electoral vote count for Joe Biden, and the following weeks were flooded by the prosecution of more than two hundred stormers.

Does that mean that their resistance failed? In the short term, yes; in the long term, maybe not. As Murray Rothbard said about the French “May 68” protests: “Whether it fizzles … or triumphs, … it gives the lie, once and for all, to the widespread myth that revolutions, whether or not desirable, are simply impossible in the modern, complex, highly technological world.” By storming the Capitol, the rioters proved that successful resistance against the American Leviathan is indeed still possible.

Clearly, the right-populists have both the numbers and willpower necessary to significantly disrupt the federal order, and their zeal is unlikely to dissipate any time soon. Therefore, the question of another revolt is not one of if, but of where and when. This reality was clear right after the storming occurred. In anticipation of riots during President Biden’s inauguration, twenty-six thousand army and Air National Guard troops were deployed to Washington, DC, and razor-wire fencing was set up around the Capitol Building. The day passed by without any incident, yet thousands of national guardsmen are still set to remain in DC through mid-March (or longer) and the acting chief of the Capitol Police has called for the fencing to stay up permanently.

As Rothbard observed in volume I of Conceived in Liberty, political resistance is not effect neutral, but actually has an augmentative effect on the actions of other partisans: “If cherished in later tradition, a revolution will decrease the awe in which the constituted authority is held by the populace, and in that way will increase the chance of a later revolt against tyranny.” That is to say that even a foiled resistance plot can help attract more people to the fold of dissent if the rebels have some cultural sway. Plans to pack the Supreme Court, unleash restrictive gun control, and prosecute right-wingers—rather than signifying the elite’s final triumph—may serve to further rally the populist dissenters.

Hitting the State Where It Hurts

When the rioters began their push to breach the Capitol Building, lawmakers were forced to shelter in place, before then evacuating to a secure location. For some of them, the day's events were evidently traumatic. That can be seen in the hyperbolic language that’s been used to describe the storming, like Chuck Schumer likening it to Pearl Harbor.

The stormers crossed the threshold of the establishment's cushy elitism and exposed lawmakers to the real-world ire their actions create. As described in a passage from Cato’s Letters, “The only secret … in forming a free government is to make the interests of the governors and of the governed the same.” Angry populists, who’ve watched federal decrees wreak havoc on their lives, turned around and gave lawmakers a taste of their own medicine.

In the wake of this, the media-government alliance has clamped down against the populist right harder than ever before.

Yet, in this vicious pushback, one can sense a prescient hint of panic within establishment ranks that the threads of their dominance may finally be unraveling. Far from playing a domineering role, the establishment politicos find themselves on the defensive in a politically unstable position.

Someday—whether it be in one week or thirty years—the US could face a serious period of mass antiestablishment demonstrations; if that day comes, it’ll signal the Washington elite’s ultimate failure.

With no cards left to play, they may be forced to tread lightly on the right-wing populists and avoid violent confrontation as much as possible, for fear of repercussions like those of January 6. This may force their hand into granting the Right some concessions—perhaps some very big ones, like a return to more states’ rights or, better yet, the right of unilateral secession. This would short-circuit the federal order and help restore to America’s overtaxed and overburdened some of their long-withheld freedoms. With everything in view, it looks like the journey down this path may have already begun.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

1614546814664.png
Schaffer still held in Marion County Jail

By Jordan Morey -
2/26/21 6:16 PM

More than a month after being arrested for his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, Jon Ryan Schaffer is still awaiting extradition to Washington D.C. at the Marion County Jail.

Schaffer, 52, of Edinburgh, turned himself in to police on Jan. 17 after a statement of fact was filed in federal court by an FBI agent. The statement claims that video and photo evidence shows Schaffer as part of the mob that infiltrated the Capitol building on Jan. 6, and that he used a form of bear spray on Capitol Police.

After Schaffer waived his preliminary hearing, as well as his rights to an identity hearing and production of a warrant, on Jan. 22, U.S. Magistrate for the Southern District of Indiana judge Mark Dinsmore signed an order for Schaffer to appear in D.C.’s district court.

The document stated that a U.S. marshal will transport the defendant to the charging district, and that the attorney and the clerk of the court will schedule further proceedings once Schaffer has arrived. The D.C. attorney’s office will have all jurisdiction over Schaffer’s case.

Schaffer has no bond set, or trial date scheduled, at this time.

Indianapolis law enforcement confirmed Schaffer was still being held by the U.S. Marshal Service at the Marion County Jail on Thursday.

Schaffer has six different federal charges filed against him, including engaging in an act of physical violence in a Capitol building.

Photos from Jan. 6 show Schaffer wearing a blue hooded sweatshirt under a tactical vest with a baseball cap that reads “Oath Keepers Lifetime Member.” New video footage from the insurrection, shown on CNN on Feb. 15, appeared to show Schaffer charging through the building’s entrance towards Capitol officers with other rioters.

The FBI has described the Oath Keepers as an organization “that characterizes itself as a militia of former law enforcement and military personnel and has often, as a group, urged President (Donald) Trump to declare Martial Law in order to prevent the Congress from certifying the Electoral College Results.”

The Indiana chapter of the Oath Keepers has put out a statement that Schaffer is not a member of their organization.

Schaffer isn’t the only individual from the riot being held in his home state awaiting trial, as more than 200 federal cases have stemmed from the attack at the Capitol.

The U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. has assigned a special task force of prosecutors to examine whether to bring sedition charges against some of the rioters, as prosecutors and federal agents across the country develop more cases against extremists who plotted to attack the Capitol, according to the The Associated Press.

Thus far, “the FBI has linked at least 40 defendants to extremist groups or movements, including at least 16 members or associates of the neo-fascist Proud Boys and at least five connected to the anti-government Oath Keepers,” according to the The Associated Press

President Joe Biden has also ordered law enforcement and intelligence officials to investigate domestic terrorism.

Schaffer, who has ties to Columbus, is of moderate fame for his heavy metal band “Iced Earth” and side projects “Demons and Wizards” and “Sons of Liberty.”

Hansi Kürsch, who started Demons and Wizards with Schaffer 20 years ago, announced on Feb. 1 that the duo is no more. Last week, Iced Earth bassist Luke Appleton and singer Stu Block both announced their departures from the band.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

TRUMP: ‘We Have A Very Sick Electoral Process’, Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Have The Guts Or Courage’ To Save Election Integrity

"We have a very sick and corrupt electoral process that must be fixed immediately," launched President Trump. "This election was rigged."
Tom Pappert
by TOM PAPPERT

February 28, 2021

Trump Slams ‘Pathetic’ Fox News For Pandering, Pushing Democrat Talking Points

President Donald Trump spoke extensively about the future of the Republican Party and the need for election integrity, saying that the 2020 election was “rigged” and that the election system in America is “very sick and corrupt.”

“We have a very sick and corrupt electoral process that must be fixed immediately,” launched President Trump. “This election was rigged, and the Supreme Court and other courts didn’t want to do anything about it.”

“If you just take that one element, where they didn’t go through legislatures, it’s illegal, you can’t do it. It’s in the Constitution,” said President Trump, after noting that in virtually every battleground state, Democrat or establishment Republican governors worked with judges to change election law without the approval or input from the state legislatures, a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“They didn’t have the courage, the Supreme Court, they didn’t have the courage to act. but instead used process, and lack of standing. I was told the President of the United States has no standing. It’s my election, it’s your election, we have no standing.”

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1366168567306141704
2:14 min

"THIS ELECTION WAS RIGGED"

Trump slams the Supreme Court for its inaction on the theft of the 2020 election. pic.twitter.com/3lR1YIVGOD
— National File (@NationalFile) February 28, 2021
President Trump continued to bemoan the inaction of the Supreme Court, noting that they even refused to hear a case brought by Texas and 17 other states.

“We had almost 20 states, if you think of it, we had almost 20 states go into the Supreme Court so we didn’t have a standing problem,” said President Trump. “They rejected it. They should be ashamed of themselves for what they’ve done to our country. They didn’t have the guts or the courage to make the right decision, they didn’t want to talk about it.”

“You had the case led by the great state of Texas, 18 states went in, ‘You don’t have standing, oh, let’s not talk about it,'” said President Trump, mocking the Supreme Court. “They didn’t have the guts to do what should be done.”

“And that’s on top of all the other forms of cheating, but this is the most basic of all. They would have local courts and local politicians change the rules, in some cases a day or two before the election. This should never be allowed to happen to another candidate or another presidential race, should never be allowed to happen.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

TRUMP: ‘Democrats Used The China Virus’ To Steal Election, Republican Party Must Ensure ‘Fair, Honest, And Secure Elections’
"Such a disgrace. We must pass comprehensive election reforms and we must do it now," said President Trump.
Tom Pappert
by TOM PAPPERT

February 28, 2021

Trump Will Use CPAC Speech To Declare Himself Presumptive 2024 Nominee – Report

President Donald Trump urged the Republican Party to make itself the party of election integrity, and lambasted the court system and weak politicians who allowed the 2020 election to be stolen from him.

“Another one of the most urgent issues facing the Republican Party is that of ensuring fair, honest, and secure elections,” said President Trump, receiving a standing ovation from the crowd of CPAC attendees.

“Such a disgrace. We must pass comprehensive election reforms and we must do it now,” said President Trump. “The Democrats used the China Virus as an excuse to change all of the election rules without the approval of their state legislatures, making it, therefore, illegal.”

President Trump referenced the fiat decisions made between judges and governors in virtually all Democrat states, and Georgia, where leaders unilaterally violated the Constitution by changing election law without the direction of state legislators, who are the only people the Constitution allows to make these decisions.
Trump says "this election was rigged" and tells Republicans that they must become the party of election integrity to ever win again. pic.twitter.com/dm0foAuLJS

— National File (@NationalFile) February 28, 2021
“It had a massive impact on the election. Again, you have to go to the legislatures to get these approvals. This alone would have easily changed the outcome of the election at levels you wouldn’t believe, even with COVID, even with all of the things, the numbers are staggering,” said President Trump, before warning, “We can never let this or other abuses of the 2020 election be repeated or happen again, we can never let that happen again.

You see what’s going on, we’ve been set back so greatly with other countries and with the world.”

“We need election integrity and election reform immediately, Republicans should be the party of honest elections that can give everyone confidence in the future of our country. Without honest elections, who has confidence?”

President Trump then appeared to bash the RNC, led by Mitt Romney’s niece, Ronna McDaniel, who after weeks without commenting about the state of the 2020 election, finally created a Republican taskforce to study the type of fraud employed in 2020, but has yet to do anything else.

“This issue is being studied and examined, but the reality is you cannot have a situation where ballots are indiscriminately pouring in from all over the country, tens of millions of ballots. Where are they coming from? They’re coming from all over the place,” said President Trump. “Where illegal aliens and dead people are voting, and many other horrible things are happening that are too voluminous to even mention, but people know. It’s being studied, and the level of dishonesty is not to be believed.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Sidney Powell LIVE: “There Is More than Enough Evidence in the Public Now to More than Reverse the Election in at Least 5 States” (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published February 28, 2021 at 7:08pm
flynn-powell.jpg

On Saturday Attorney Sidney Powell and Retired General Michael Flynn joined Erskine for his weekly podcast.

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn
is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General who was the 25th United States National Security Advisor for President Trump. Flynn’s military career included a key role in shaping U.S. counterterrorism strategy and disarming insurgent networks in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and was given numerous combat arms, conventional, and special operations senior intelligence assignments. His book, The Field of Fight, is brilliant. www.defendingtherepublic.org

Sidney Powell served in the Department of Justice for 10 years and for the last 20 years has devoted her private practice to federal appeals. She was the youngest Assistant U.S Attorney and later became Chief of the Appellate Section for the Western and Northern Districts of Texas. Sidney Powell is recognized by her peers as a “Super Lawyer” and named as one of the “Best Lawyers in America”. Her Amazon best-selling book Licensed To Lie reads like a legal thriller. Her latest book is CONVICTION MACHINE: Standing Up to Prosecutorial Abuse. Learn the TRUTH about the 2020 election and what it means to America

Sidney Powell had this to say to open the conversation. “Well, Erskine from my perspective it looks like the complete breakdown of every institution of law enforcement and the rule of law that we have trusted in this country since its inception to protect the law and the citizens from abuses by the government.

As far as the last election Sidney Powell had this to say, “There’s all kind of precedent for fixing what happened in this election from Bush vs. Gore to other cases as well… Fractionalized votes. That’s exactly what we have here from a computer algorithm that we can prove in multiple counties and it could prove across the country if anybody would issue an order allowing inspection of the machines. The very fact that Dominion and other companies are not allowing inspection of the voting machines ought to tell everybody all they need to know. Federal law calls for election records to be kept for 22 months… In this case it requires forensic evaluations of the machines and looking at all of the paper ballots. We already know that’s not going to match up. There were counterfeit ballots.

People were saying, “Oh, well they did a full audit in Georgia.” Well, if you just keep running the same counterfeit bill through the same counting machine you’re going to get the same result.

Sidney then dropped this bomb, “There is enough evidence in the cases before them or enough evidence in the public now to more than reverse the election in at least five states.”

That was just the first 7 minutes of the interview!

Rumble video on website 40:10 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

They Have Betrayed the Constitution – Overwhelming Evidence of FBI Corruption

By Larry Johnson
Published February 28, 2021 at 8:20pm
fbi-spy-600x363.jpg


The American people, regardless of political affiliation, should be bellowing a primal scream of outrage in light of the new evidence–overwhelming evidence at that–of the FBI’s corruption. If you have not read John Solomon’s latest revelations about the contents of formerly classified FBI documents that were declassified one week before Donald Trump left Washington, DC, then you need to take the time. You can read it here.

Permit me to point out some background you need to appreciate the appalling gravity of these documents. In theory the FBI is not supposed to be a Secret Police (i.e., a GESTAPO).

No FBI Agent or official is supposed to have the ability to wake up in the morning and decide to start investigating an American citizen just because the Agent does not like what someone has written or said. But we now know that world is our reality.

In theory, Special Prosecutor John Durham, could put the brakes on this lawlessness by indicting and convicting James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Bruce Ohr and others. Do not hold your breath. Durham appears to be a fraud and his failure to act will further embolden the FBI to engage in more illegal acts.

The FBI documents use code names for various members of the Trump campaign team. Here’s your cheat sheet:
  • George Papadopoulos — Crossfire Typhoon (aka CT)
  • Carter Page — Crossfire Dragron (aka CD)
  • General Michael Flynn — Crossfire Razor (aka CR)
  • Campaign chairman Paul Manafort, — Crossfire Fury (aka CF)
But they were not the only ones targeted. These men also were put in the cross-hairs, without knowing the FBI was after them for the mere act of supporting Donald Trump:
  • Future Attorney General Jeff Sessions,
  • Foreign policy adviser Sam Clovis,
  • Economic adviser Peter Navarro
Inspector General Michael Horowitz lied with his claim that Crossfire Hurricane was “properly predicated.” It was not. There was no justification for this massive counter intelligence investigation, which had only one purpose–help Hillary Clinton.

The key informant/spy in this operation is Stefan Halper, an obese bloodsucker whose father-in-law was a top level CIA officer in the 1970s:
Halper is an American foreign policy scholar and retired Senior Fellow at the University of Cambridge where he is a Life Fellow at Magdalene College.[1] He served as a White House official in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, and was reportedly in charge of the spying operation by the 1980 Ronald Reagan presidential campaign that became known as “Debategate“. Through his decades of work for the CIA, Halper has had extensive ties to the Bush family.[2] Through his work with Sir Richard Billing Dearlove, he had ties to the British Secret Intelligence Service MI6.
Halper is referred to in the FBI documents as Confidential Human Source aka CHS.
Here are the key documents for your own perusal. Do not take my word for it:
Halper Source Documents_final.pdf
04518073623.pdf (FBI interview of FBI Agent William Barnett)
HalperPageIntercept11-2016.pdf
The money quote from Solomon’s article is this:
Former FBI Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock said the information about Papadopoulos’ foreign lobbying that the bureau used to open the Russia collusion probe failed to meet the bureau’s own legal standards to justify the larger dragnet that encompassed Page and many other Trump officials.
“Normally when the FBI opens an investigation on a U.S. citizen, it has specific facts justifying an investigation of that person,” explained Brock, who led the implementation of many of the bureau’s current rules for informants and intelligence gathering. “But here what the ECs are saying is they don’t know who is involved and they are just conjecturing that someone in the Trump campaign might be in a position to receive help from Russia. You just can’t open a full field investigation on conjecture. . . .

“What they are doing is using preferred definitions,” he said. “When we employ the investigative techniques used against Carter Page to break the laws of another country and steal their secrets, it’s okay to call it spying. When we use those same techniques against a U.S. citizen, it’s called an investigation.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

President Trump: Capitol Officials Controlled by Pelosi Rejected My Recommendation of 10,000 National Guard for January 6 Because of Optics

By Kristinn Taylor
Published February 28, 2021 at 10:45pm

President Trump spoke about the January 6 riot at the Capitol during a phone interview with Steve Hilton on the Fox News Channel program the Next Revolution that aired Sunday night, saying he “hated to see it.”
Trump-Hilton-Fox-Screen-Image-02282021.jpg

Trump denied reports he was watching the riot on TV and liked what he was seeing, saying, “Well, that’s incorrect reporting. First of all I wasn’t watching TV. I turned it on later on when I heard about it and did a lot of moves. You know, we said to the Department of Defense, the top person, days before we had the rally, cuz that rally was massive…(Trump comments on large rally crowd)…and I said that I think you should have ten thousand, I think I gave the number, I definitely gave the number of ten thousand National Guardsmen, I think you have ten thousand of the National Guard ready. They took that number, from what I understand they gave it to the people at the Capitol which is controlled by Pelosi and I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it looked good. So, you know, that was a big mistake.”

Hilton pressed Trump on how he feels now about the riot. Trump said, “I hate to see it, I think it’s terrible, I hate to see it” and went on to compare the “double standard” of the reaction to the Capitol riot with the riots last year by Antifa and the radical left in Washington, D.C., Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis.

CNN’s Olive Darcy posted a video clip of the interview with a typical for CNN misleading description.

Fox's @SteveHiltonx asks Trump if he understands "how bad" the insurrection was. Trump uses the opportunity to boast about how big his January 6 rally crowd was. After some prodding by Hilton, Trump eventually calls it "terrible" and then goes off on a tangent about Antifa. pic.twitter.com/J6twxuNhoO
— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) March 1, 2021
The Daily Caller reported Saturday that Capitol officials said Pelosi’s office had made it clear in the months before the riot that National Guard should not be deployed to protect the Capitol because of optics.
In the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Former Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving recalled to House Admin how previous discussions with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her office factored in to his “blender of decision making,” according to three sources with direct knowledge of Irving’s talk with House Admin.
Pelosi’s office had previously impressed upon Irving that the National Guard was to remain off Capitol Grounds, Irving allegedly told House Admin. The discussions, which centered around “optics,” allegedly occurred in the months prior to the Jan. 6 riot, during a time when deployment of federal resources for civil unrest was unpopular with Democrats and many members of Congress.
The three sources who confirmed the discussion to the Daily Caller did so under the condition of anonymity, citing the fear of putting a chill on further witnesses to how the security situation unfolded Jan. 6. The discussion, if accurate, raises questions as to what role Pelosi’s office had in the security failures that resulted in the resignations of both Irving and former Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund. Pelosi’s Deputy Chief of Staff Drew Hammill did not deny the allegations in a statement to the Daily Caller.

“The Speaker’s Office has made it clear publicly and repeatedly that our office was not consulted or contacted concerning any request for the National Guard ahead of January 6th. That has been confirmed by former Sergeant at Arms Irving in sworn testimony before Senate committees. The Speaker expects security professionals to make security decisions and to briefed about those decisions,” Hammill said.
“It is our understanding that Committee on House Administration Ranking Republican Member Davis was briefed in advance of January 6th about security preparedness, but took no action to address any security concerns that he might have had,” he concluded.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser issued a statement on January 5 that she did not want any help from federal law enforcement agencies, “To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway.”
To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway. pic.twitter.com/FhnNe1dWeJ
— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) January 5, 2021
The AP reported January 4 on Bowser’s request for a light contingent of unarmed Guard for traffic control, noting that no Guard would be deployed at the Capitol.
…Mayor Muriel Bowser has requested a limited National Guard deployment to help bolster the Metropolitan Police Department.
…According to a U.S. defense official, Bowser put in a request on New Year’s Eve to have Guard members on the streets from Jan. 5 to Jan. 7 to help with the protests. The official said the additional forces will be used for traffic control and other assistance but they will not be armed or wearing body armor.

…Some 340 D.C. National Guard members will be activated, with about 115 on duty in the streets at any given time, said the defense official, who provided details on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The official said Guard members will be used to set up traffic control points around the city and to stand with district police officers at all the city’s Metro stops. (Acting D.C. Police Chief) Contee said Guard troops will also be used for some crowd management.
…The defense official said that there will be no active duty military troops in the city, and the U.S. military will not be providing any aircraft or intelligence. The D.C. Guard will provide specialized teams that will be prepared to respond to any chemical or biological incident. But the official said there will be no D.C. Guard members on the National Mall or at the U.S. Capitol.
Like President Trump said, “That was a big mistake.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Arizona Republican Representative Mark Finchem Is Suing Arizona Democrats for Malice After They Accused Him of Treason for Reporting on Suspected Election Fraud
By Joe Hoft
3/1/2021


Mark-Finchem-CPAC-Suing-Dems.jpg

CPAC 2021: Rep. Mark Finchem on Suing Members of the Arizona House and Senate for Defamation and Malice.

Arizona Representative Mark Finchem is suing members of the Arizona House and Senate for defamation related to their acts in accusing him of sedition and treason and then forwarding their claims to the corrupt media.

Representative Finchem shared at CPAC with the Epoch Times:
So earlier in January, the Democrat members of the House and Senate sent a letter to the Department of Justice and the FBI accusing me of high treason, sedition, plannin an insurrection, the overthrow of our government. All patently absurd fallacious claims, but then they turned around and sent it to the media as though it was factual. Well in that, they committed malice.

And I reached out to my lawyer friends and said, hey, this isn’t right. All I did was go to the capital to deliver an evidence packet to representative Gosar who in turn delivered it to Vice President Pence. I was exercising my franchise. First of all it was my free speech, but even more importantly representing my constituents…
View: https://youtu.be/acbuIxeHQws
14:36 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
STOP THE STEAL: GOP Lawmakers in Swing States Move to Prevent Democrat Fraud and Return Voting Systems to Pre-2020 Rules
Jim Hoft Published March 1, 2021 at 10:20am P

chain-of-custody.jpg
Democrat election violations: (left to right) Secret ballot counting in Georgia, Secret ballot deliveries at 3:30 AM in Detroit, Blocking observers from viewing inside the TCF Center in Detroit
At midnight on election night, President Trump warned his supporters not to let Democrats “find any votes at 4 in the morning.”

** President Trump was ahead in Pennsylvania by nearly 700,000 votes.
** In Michigan Trump was ahead by over 300,000 votes.
** In Wisconsin Trump was ahead by 120,000 votes.

Trump was also ahead in Georgia and Nevada.

And President Trump already trounced Joe Biden in Ohio, Florida, and Iowa — three states that ALWAYS go to the eventual presidential winner.

Then suddenly Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin announced they would not be announcing their winner that night. This was an unprecedented and coordinated move in US history.

Then many crimes occurred to swing the election to Biden, but perhaps the greatest crime was the lack of dual controls and chain of custody records that ensure a fair and free election. At a high level, when ballots are transferred or changes are made in voting machines, these moves and changes should be done with two individuals present (dual control), one from each party, and the movements of ballots should be recorded.

So when states inserted drop boxes into the election, these changes first needed to be updated through the legislature, which they weren’t, and all movements from the time when the ballots were inserted into drop boxes needed to be recorded, which they weren’t.
Chain of Custody laws were violated across the United States to favor lawless Democrats.

Georgia

On Sunday President Trump delivered his first speech at the annual CPAC Convention since leaving office in January.

During his speech President Trump listed the activities needed to address the election fraud of 2020.

President Trump listed the activities needed in elections going forward in his speech today at CPAC:
  1. We should have one election day – not 45 days
  2. The only people who should be allowed to vote absentee are those with a good reason, sickness, etc.
  3. Eliminate mail-in voting
  4. Must have voter ID
  5. We need universal signature matching
  6. There should be a 100% requirement to be American to vote
  7. And we must have chain of custody for every ballot
Rumble video 8:16 min

Additionally, the President said:** Our election process is worse than that of a 3rd world country.

** State legislatures have the privilege of being able to update laws, not judges
** Time magazine article reported on the corruption in the election is a must read.
** We also need free speech. We can’t have Republicans censored.
** Your numbers are bigger than their numbers – Republicans are much bigger.
** They don’t want to debate because we have easier victories.

The good news is Republican lawmakers are working to make elections more secure.
GOP State legislatures are working to roll back the 2020 rule changes in their states.


Just The News reported:
Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona all considering bills to roll back rule changes
Legislators in numerous states are angling to address some of those concerns by pushing for legislation to shore up what critics claim are the vulnerabilities created by relaxed voting rules.
In Georgia — which flipped blue for Biden this year in one of several razor-thin races that went in the Democrat’s favor — the Senate passed a bill that would require voters to submit “photocopies of voter identification documents for absentee ballot applications.”

The bill would do away with the current signature-matching system currently in place for absentee voting. Critics have accused that system of being ripe for fraud and abuse, particularly after the state’s Gov. Brian Kemp agreed to activist demands last year to make it much more onerous for officials to reject disputed signatures.
In Pennsylvania — which Trump lost by fewer than 100,000 votes — state lawmakers have signaled an intent to repeal the state’s “no-excuse” mail-in voting system, first implemented in 2019.
State Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano last month said in a Senate memorandum that they “intend to introduce legislation repealing the no-excuse mail-in ballot provisions” put in place two years ago via the state’s Act 77.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

BREAKING: THE FRAUD WILL STAND – Supreme Court Rejects Sidney Powell’s Election Fraud Cases without Comment

By Jim Hoft
Published March 1, 2021 at 12:22pm

Last Monday the United States Supreme Court refused to review the Pennsylvania 2020 Election cases.

The court made the announcement on Monday morning.

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented from the denial.


On Monday, following their inaction last week, the US Supreme Court rejected without comment or explanation, lingering 2020 election challenges by Attorney Sidney Powell in Arizona and Wisconsin.

Far left Law and Crime reported:
The Supreme Court rejected two mandamus petitions that Sidney Powell and other “Kraken”-aligned lawyers filed in late December. Those cases were stylized as In re Tyler Bowyer, et al. and In Re William Feehan. The cases took issue with the election results in Arizona and Wisconsin, where Trump lost to Joe Biden.
“The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied,” the court said Monday. That’s it, that’s the order.

The matter-of-factness and brevity stands in stark contrast to the urgency and “public importance” that the lawyers communicated in the since-dismissed petitions.

“A submission directly to this Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus is unusual, but it has its foundation. While such relief is rare, this Court will grant it ‘where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken,’” each of the mandamus petitions said.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Efforts underway in key battleground states to return voting systems to pre-2020 rules
Legislators looking to roll back major changes to mail-in voting, early voter lists.


By Daniel Payne
Updated: March 1, 2021 - 11:54am

Significant legislative attempts are underway in multiple U.S. states, including key battleground states, to roll back major changes in voting rules and regulations to various pre-2020 status quo antes. The efforts come after an historically chaotic election process that has left millions of Americans doubtful of election fairness, security, transparency and accountability.

Changes to election rules — some of them enacted prior to 2020 and others put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic last year — have included expansive mail-in voting, expanded early voting, relaxation of verification rules, and extensions to ballot receipt deadlines.

Those rules likely contributed to a record 158,000,000-plus votes cast in the 2020 election.

But the relaxation of various voting requirements has also led to significant distrust in the election system: Nearly 40% of voters believe that U.S. elections are beset by fraud, while a similar number claim that such concerns haven't been properly vetted by public authorities.

Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona all considering bills to roll back rule changes
Legislators in numerous states are angling to address some of those concerns by pushing for legislation to shore up what critics claim are the vulnerabilities created by relaxed voting rules.

In Georgia — which flipped blue for Biden this year in one of several razor-thin races that went in the Democrat's favor — the Senate passed a bill that would require voters to submit "photocopies of voter identification documents for absentee ballot applications."

The bill would do away with the current signature-matching system currently in place for absentee voting. Critics have accused that system of being ripe for fraud and abuse, particularly after the state's Gov. Brian Kemp agreed to activist demands last year to make it much more onerous for officials to reject disputed signatures.

In Pennsylvania — which Trump lost by fewer than 100,000 votes — state lawmakers have signaled an intent to repeal the state's "no-excuse" mail-in voting system, first implemented in 2019.

State Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano last month said in a Senate memorandum that they "intend to introduce legislation repealing the no-excuse mail-in ballot provisions" put in place two years ago via the state's Act 77.

"By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections' integrity," the senators argued.

Stefano has also vowed to repeal Act 77's "annual mail-in voter list" and to mandate that "only the Pennsylvania Department of State may send applications for mail in ballots to eligible voters."

"By guaranteeing that eligible voters must apply for a mail-in ballot for each election, and that only the Department of State may distribute the applications to apply for mail-in ballots," he wrote, "we can address much of the confusion and frustration that surrounded our most recent election cycle."

In the Pennsylvania House, meanwhile, Rep. Dan Moul has vowed to codify into law "the only legal ways for a voter to utilize the vote by mail system," namely by returning a mail ballot either via the postal service or in person. Critics had criticized Pennsylvania's use of drop boxes during the 2020 election, claiming they posed a significant security risk, though the state Supreme Court ruled in a split decision that the boxes were allowed.

In some cases, legislators are attempting to get ahead of changes to voting law that were observed in some states during the 2020 election. For instance, a bill under consideration in Arizona — another flip for Biden, one that the Democrat won by just 11,000 votes — would make it a felony for any public official to proactively send out a mail-in ballot to any voter not on the state's early voting list.

Numerous states such as California and New Jersey automatically mailed every voter a mail-in ballot ahead of the November election.

In Arizona, meanwhile, Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes last March attempted to send mail-in ballots to every registered voter there, though he was ordered by a court to cease shortly before doing so.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Supreme Court to debate voting rights case that advocates worry will limit access to polls
John Fritze
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – Eduardo Sainz was standing at the front door of a home in Tucson, Arizona, encouraging the family inside to vote when the young man and his mom asked for a favor that under the state’s current law would make him a felon.

Sainz, state director of the Latino advocacy group Mi Familia Vota, said neither the young man, who was in a wheelchair, nor his mother had a car or the time needed to mail their ballots before Arizona’s gubernatorial election in 2014. They asked Sainz to drop off their ballots on his way home – and he agreed.

"It made the difference between participation and their ballot sitting on a shelf and not being counted,” said Sainz, whose group collected thousands of votes in similar encounters before the state banned such handoffs. “It was a connector to democracy.”

Five years after Arizona criminalized what critics call "ballot harvesting," and four months after a presidential election in which the practice was bitterly debated, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a pair of cases that will determine when states may limit voting and, potentially, whether a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act will stand.

Arguments in the case are set for Tuesday.

Twenty-six states allow voters to designate a third party to turn in their ballots, though 12 of those states limit how many ballots a person may collect, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Ten states allow family members or caregivers to return ballots but not third-party groups such as Mi Familia Vota.

Supporters say ballot collection enfranchises low-income voters who work multiple jobs or can’t access transportation. Critics see a potential for ballot tampering and voter intimidation and point to a bipartisan report in 2005 in which former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker recommended prohibiting it.

President Donald Trump slammed ballot collection in the runup to the election Nov. 3, and there have been cases of fraud connected with the procedure – including in a New Jersey election last year. But Trump himself relied on someone else to submit his primary ballot, and nonpartisan observers say election fraud is exceedingly rare.

The outcome of the dispute before the justices could have far-reaching implications for the ability to challenge other controversial election laws, including voter ID requirements, that critics say have a disproportionate impact on Black and Latino voters.

About 165 bills that would restrict voting have been introduced this year in 33 states this year, a nearly fivefold increase from the same period in 2020, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

"The court could decide this in a number of ways, which could include weakening" the ability to challenge ballot laws, said Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center’s voting rights and elections program. That, she said, would undermine "the main tool we have left now to protect voters against racial discrimination."

Ballot collection debated

Two Arizona policies are at issue in the cases.

First is the 2016 law prohibiting anyone but family, household members and mail carriers from collecting someone else’s ballot. The other is the state’s long-standing policy of not counting ballots submitted by voters in the wrong precinct.

Neither of those policies is unique to Arizona, but the California-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that they had a disproportionate impact on Native American, Latino and Black voters and that they were enacted within a broader context of voter discrimination in the state. The court noted that only 18% of Native Americans in Arizona have access to home mail service. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court.

Mark Brnovich, the state’s Republican attorney general, argued the standard used by the appeals court could find virtually any voting restriction discriminatory. The district court, he noted, found state lawmakers were "sincere in their belief" that ballot collection fraud was occurring (the court called that belief misinformed). President Joe Biden’s administration told the justices in a letter Feb. 16 that, in its view, neither policy violates the landmark Voting Rights Act signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson.

"This isn’t some radical theory," Brnovich told USA TODAY. "First and foremost, a majority of states have statutes similar to Arizona's when it comes to out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting."

Brnovich said the state’s overall voting system – including a 27-day window to cast an early ballot – makes it easy for racial and ethnic minorities and nonminorities to vote. Roughly 8 in 10 Arizonans cast early ballots in 2016, according to court documents. On Election Day, 99% of minorities and 99.5% of nonminorities vote in the correct precinct – a difference, the state argued, that is not statistically significant.

Democrats describe both policies as motivated by discrimination, and they point in part to decades of history as context for the claim. Arizona, for instance, used a literary test for voter registration for decades – until the early 1970s. It was one of nine states required in 2013 to secure approval from the Justice Department before making changes to voting laws, an effort to head off discriminatory practices before they began.

"Any objective look at the facts in this case would find, as the 9th Circuit did, that these laws are discriminatory and disenfranchise communities of color and tribal people," Democratic National Committee chairman Jamie Harrison said.

National scope

Eight years ago, the Supreme Court eviscerated a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required Arizona and other states to obtain Justice Department approval of proposed voting laws. That 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder put Chief Justice John Roberts and now-former Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy together with the court’s other conservatives.

After the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last year and the confirmation of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, conservatives have a 6-3 majority. The Arizona dispute gives the newly configured court its first opportunity to flex its muscle in a major election case. It has, by contrast, declined many of the cases related to the 2020 election.

Once the pre-clearance provision was gutted, voting rights advocates increasingly relied on another section of the law – known as Section 2 – to challenge voting restrictions such as those imposed in Arizona. A similar outcome in the case pending before the court, Pérez and others said, would make those challenges far more difficult to win.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibited laws that were approved with a discriminatory intent. In response, Congress revised the act, and two years later, President Ronald Reagan signed a law that created a "results" test, meaning election laws could be found discriminatory regardless of lawmakers’ intent.

When weighing a Section 2 challenge to an election law, courts consider the “totality of the circumstances,” including the historical context of elections in the state or county in question. That means assessing how many minority candidates have won elections there, for instance, and whether candidates have used racist messaging.

The response by Congress in the 1980s is part of the reason Edward Foley, director of Ohio State University’s election law program, doesn’t see the Supreme Court driving a stake through the heart of the provision. The challenge for the court, he said, is to develop a workable test for discrimination that’s clear so states may follow it.

"There’s a strong need to just understand how this section of the law should operate," he said. "How do you craft a meaningful results test … so you can really know what laws flunk the test and what laws don’t. I think you’re going to see a big struggle among the justices."


 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Kavanaugh dismays conservatives by dodging pro-Trump election lawsuits

BY JOHN KRUZEL - 02/28/21 08:49 PM EST 2,968

Justice Brett Kavanaugh dismayed conservatives this week when he cast what appears to be the deciding vote preventing the Supreme Court from taking up pro-Trump election lawsuits.

Kavanaugh’s apparent break with the court’s three staunchest conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — seemed to catch his colleagues by surprise, and provoked ire among some on the political right who viewed the move as an act of betrayal.

Thomas in a dissent said he was “befuddled” by the court’s reluctance to take up the disputes, given that four justices — including Kavanaugh — had signaled in late October their view that the pro-Trump challengers were likely to win on appeal.

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules,” Thomas wrote in what some analysts saw as a thinly veiled swipe at Kavanaugh. “Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling.”

Alito and Gorsuch wrote separate dissents from the court’s denial on Monday, but made clear they agreed with Thomas. The dissenting justices indicated the disputes would not have disturbed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

As is typical practice, the justices did not provide the public with a complete view of how they voted on the petitions, or their reasoning. But the dissents by Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch strongly suggested that Kavanaugh lost his appetite to engage with the election-related disputes.

If so, Kavanaugh’s vote this week marked a reversal from his previous stance. In the run-up to the November election, he joined Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch in siding with Pennsylvania Republicans in their emergency bid to roll back voter accommodations former President Trump alleged were illegal.

Anthony Sanders of the libertarian Institute for Justice, a litigation firm, said the conservative justices’ dissents appeared aimed at Kavanaugh’s apparent flip-flop.

“Thomas, Alito, & Gorsuch seem pretty ‘befuddled’ & ‘baffled’ at Justice Kavanaugh today,” Sanders wrote on Twitter. “He voted with them to take a case on the scope of the ‘legislature clause’ last fall, but strangely is absent in granting cert in the Pennsylvania case."

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board also called out Kavanaugh directly in an article blasting the court for failing to end what it described as “election anarchy.”

“Where did Justice Brett Kavanaugh wander off to, since he was the fourth vote in October?” the editorial board wrote.

In their petition, Pennsylvania Republicans argued that the U.S. Constitution gives state lawmakers sole authority over elections in the Keystone State. If that view were embraced by the justices, it would mean that pandemic-era accommodations like expanded mail voting that were put in place by the secretary of state were unconstitutional.

Kavanaugh, in October, appeared sympathetic to that argument. Following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kavanaugh joined the court’s three conservative stalwarts in siding with the Pennsylvania GOP to halt the new voting rules. The court's 4-4 tie left the accommodations intact through the Nov. 6 election.

Some see a connection between Kavanaugh's change of heart Monday and the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol that was fueled by Trump’s election disinformation.

Julie Kelly, a fierce Trump defender and self-described “agitator,” accused Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, of cowardice in the face of pressure from Democrats and the news media.

“One can only assume since Kavanaugh changed his pre-election position on Pennsylvania, threats of promoting a ‘Big Lie’ about election fraud got to him,” Kelly wrote in the hard-right publication American Greatness.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and law professor at the University of California Irvine, offered two guesses for why the court avoided hearing the election lawsuits. Either the justices lost interest in the disputes since they are now moot, he said, or the court stayed away because the Trump cases are seen as “somewhat radioactive.”

“Given former President Trump’s continued false statements that the election was stolen, the case would become a further vehicle to argue that the election results were illegitimate,” Hasen wrote on the Election Law Blog. “It would thrust the Court back in the spotlight on an issue the Justices showed repeatedly they wanted to avoid.”

Following Trump's electoral defeat, he and his allies racked up an abysmal record in court as they tried to undermine President Biden’s win through post-election lawsuits. The Supreme Court so far has declined to take up roughly a dozen such cases.

In all, the court on Monday denied appeals in eight election-related lawsuits filed by Trump or his allies. Many of the suits urged the justices to clarify the legal gray area concerning which state government branch has the power to administer elections.

The court has not cleared its docket of post-election litigation entirely, however. The justices on Friday are slated to discuss a Trump challenge to Wisconsin's mail ballot policy and Kavanaugh could face renewed pressure to hear the case.


 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

'We're done with that lifestyle': Ohio woman charged in Capitol riot to cancel Oath Keepers membership
Marc Kovac
The Columbus Dispatch

An Ohio woman ordered held in jail pending trial on charges in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol told a federal judge late Friday that she has disbanded her Ohio militia and plans to cancel her membership in the Oath Keepers.

Jessica Watkins, 38, of Champaign County, told U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta in the District of Columbus that she was appalled and humiliated by the events of Jan. 6.

“As soon as I’m out, whether acquittal or release, I’m canceling my Oath Keepers membership,” she said. “I have no desire to continue with people who say things like that.”

Federal investigators say this image shows Jessica Watkins, of Champaign County, at the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.  The photo was included in a federal court filing, but taken by Ford Fischer/ News2Share


'I did it out of the love of my country'

Watkins also said she helped form an Ohio State Regular Militia to assist with search and rescues during tornadoes, and to assist law enforcement as needed. She said she has now disbanded the group and wants to focus on her small business, the Jolly Roger Bar and Grill in Woodstock, about 40 miles northwest of Columbus.

“We’re done with that lifestyle,” Watkins said. “We’ve got a struggling small business. I did it out of the love of my country, but I think it’s time to let all of that go… I don’t intend to read social media for amusement or political purposes. I think it’s just time for me to focus on my business.”

Jolly Roger Bar and Grill at East Bennett and North Main Street in Woodstock, across the street from the Champaign County village's municipal building. The bar had been shuttered after the arrest of owner Jessica Watkins on criminal charges in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.


Watkins offered the comments during a hearing before Judge Mehta, on the federal bench in the District of Columbia, seeking her release from custody pending legal proceedings against her on criminal charges in the Capitol riot. The insurrection temporarily disrupted the U.S. House and Senate as they officially certified Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election.

Multiple Ohioans charged in DC riot

Watkins is among at least 10 Ohioans who have been charged in the Capitol riot to date.

She and Donovan Crowl, 50, also of Champaign County, were arrested a little more than a week after the attack among members of the Oath Keepers, whose members "believe that the federal government has been co-opted by a shadowy conspiracy that is trying to strip American citizens of their rights," according to court records.

Prosecutors have sought to keep Watkins and others in custody during court proceedings against them, alleging potential ongoing dangers to the community if they were released.

“She was involved in active recruitment, planning and coordinating future violence against the government,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Ahmed Baset. “There are no conditions or set of conditions that would preclude her from engaging in that type of activity moving forward. Even if she’s placed under home confinement, even if she has an electronic monitoring system, it would not stop her.”

Watkins' denouncement of Oath Keepers not enough for release

Michelle Peterson, chief assistant federal public defender, who is representing Watkins, asked the court to release Watkins to home confinement, writing that her client was not violent and did not vandalize or destroy property on Jan. 6. Watkins entered the Capitol about 40 minutes after others had breached the building, she wrote.

Additionally, Watkins has no prior history of violence or criminal convictions, spoke to officers and Secret Service members that day, provided her contact information, and turned herself into local police when she learned of her arrest warrant, Peterson argued.

“I have seen no evidence that she committed any acts of violence,” Peterson said Friday, adding that others who were arrested in the Jan. 6 riot who did commit violent acts have been released from custody pending trial.

Mehta, however, cited Watkins' actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, along with weapons, tactical gear and a recipe for a destructive device found in her residence during a warranted search afterward in deciding against her release.

She expressed "a desire to fight, kill and die over the result of this election," he said. "Again, these aren't just mere expressions. They've actually been followed up by conduct... While you have today denounced the Oath Keepers, you have renounced your affiliation with them, I have to balance that against your prior conduct. There is a continued risk, it seems to me, that once you are released, that you will reaffiliate yourself with these groups and these people."
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

U.S. Capitol riot: Arrested Ohio woman says she met in advance with Secret Service
Marc Kovac
The Columbus Dispatch

Federal investigators say this image shows Jessica Watkins, of Champaign County, at the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.  The photo was included in a federal court filing, but taken by Ford Fischer/ News2Share


An Ohio woman arrested for her role in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol said in a court filing over the weekend that she believed she was acting on a call from former President Donald Trump to support, not overthrow, the government.

Jessica Watkins, 38, of Woodstock in Champaign County, also said in court documents that she traveled to Washington, D.C., to provide security for speakers at Trump’s protest rally that day, that she met with the Secret Service in advance, and that she had a VIP pass to the event.

“Ms. Watkins did not engage in any violence or force at the Capitol grounds or in the Capitol,” according to a motion seeking her release to home confinement filed Saturday in federal court for the District of Columbia by her federal public defender, A.J. Kramer. “She did not vandalize anything or engage in any destruction of property. She was polite to the police officers she encountered and did not yell at or harass them.”

Watkins has been in federal custody since her arrest on Jan. 17. U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta has scheduled a Tuesday afternoon hearing to consider whether to keep Watkins in custody or allow her release as her case proceeds.

The Oath Keepers are a paramilitary group that, according to investigators in court documents, promotes conspiracy theories that the federal government is trying to strip American citizens of their rights.


Watkins and Donovan Crowl, 50, also of Champaign County, were among those arrested a little more than a week after the attack. Investigators say they and others are part of the Oath Keepers militia who donned military attire and forced their way into the Capitol.

Members of the Oath Keepers "believe that the federal government has been co-opted by a shadowy conspiracy that is trying to strip American citizens of their rights," according to court records. Specifically it focuses recruitment on former military, law enforcement and first responders. The group has chapters around country. In Ohio, Watkins called herself the "commanding officer" of the Ohio State Regular Militia. In an affidavit the FBI filed in court against Watkins, agents said the militia members are dues-paying members of the Oath Keepers.

Members of the group, including Warren County residents Bennie Parker, 70, and Sandra Parker, 60, also were arrested in the past week as co-defendants in the case against Watkins and Crowl, alleging the Oath Keepers planned in advance of Jan. 6, forcibly entered the U.S. Capitol with other rioters, and attempted to delete social media posts and other information about their involvement afterward.

Federal prosecutors have sought to keep Watkins and others in custody as court proceedings against them continue, noting their involvement in the Oath Keepers militia and the potential ongoing dangers to the community if they were released.

In a court filing opposing Caldwell’s release, prosecutors wrote, “… as evidenced by her conduct leading up to, during, and after the attack on the Capitol, Watkins exhibited a single-minded devotion to obstruct through violence an official proceeding that, on Jan. 6, was designed to confirm the next president of the United States. Crimes of this magnitude, committed with such zeal, belie any conditions of release that would reasonably assure the safety of the community or by which Watkins could be trusted to abide.”

Prosecutors also said in court documents that Watkins remains a leader within a broader militia movement who helped recruit and train people in advance of Jan. 6.

But Watkins’ filing seeking release from custody paints a different picture: that of a former U.S. Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, a small business owner hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic, and a transgender female at risk while behind bars.

Watkins' attorney argues she “fell prey to the false and inflammatory claims of the former president, his supporters and the right-wing media.”

“Although misguided, she believed she was supporting the Constitution and her government by providing security services at the rally organized by Mr. Trump and the Republican lawmakers who supported his goals,” the document adds.

Kramer noted in court documents that Watkins has no prior history of violence or criminal convictions, that she provided her contact information to officers at the scene on Jan. 6, and that she turned herself into local police she she learned of her arrest warrant.
Additionally, Watkins entered the Capitol building 40 minutes after it had been breached by others and attempted to stop others from doing damage. “By the time Ms. Watkins allegedly entered the Capitol grounds and into the building, the doors were opened. No police officer suggested that the building was restricted or that Ms. Watkins was required to leave,” the court documents state,

Watkins also did not seek out members of Congress on Jan. 6, did not destroy or vandalize government property, and helped people who were injured during the event, the documents state.

Scribd doc on site

1614626901449.png
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Kavanaugh and Barrett’s Share of the Shame
The Trump-appointed justices’ alliance with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court is not a betrayal of Republicans or the president who appointed them. It’s a betrayal of the Constitution.

By Julie Kelly
ag-mark_90833ec2.svg
February 25, 2021

With Election Day looming and early voting underway, Judge Amy Coney Barrett pledged at her confirmation hearing in October she would not act as a Republican “pawn” in any election dispute.

Democrats and the media, anticipating a close vote in the Electoral College, warned Barrett would rule in favor of the man who nominated her if the ultimate decision reached the Supreme Court as it did in 2000; Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) demanded Barrett recuse herself “in any case involving Donald Trump’s election.”

Blumenthal, in essence, got his way. Democrats must be thrilled—laughing all the way to 2022 and 2024—at the de facto recusals by Justices Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh in every post-election lawsuit petitioned before the court, even those not filed by the Trump campaign.

Kavanaugh and Barrett, sold to the country as “originalists” who would counteract the bench’s Left-leaning jurists, instead joined their liberal colleagues and Chief Justice John Roberts to reject each case. In doing so, Barrett and Kavanaugh broke their promise to defend the Constitution and gave their imprimatur to lawless state elections—a clear and present danger to the future of the country.

Unilateral Action
The first sign of trouble came in December. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit on December 7 asking the court to delay the December 14 deadline for states to certify electoral votes. It was a last-ditch longshot attempt to do the work the U.S. Department of Justice, Democratic state attorneys generals, and lower courts refused to do: adjudicate provable election fraud before it was too late.

Paxton’s filing, immediately joined by several Republican attorneys general and more than 100 Republican House members, detailed election illegalities in four states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia—and argued those states violated the Constitution by flouting election laws passed by their respective legislatures.

Using COVID-19 as an excuse, unauthorized officials made up their own voting rules to greatly expand mail-in voting, a massive—and decisive—gift to Joe Biden.

Among other policies unilaterally enacted, deadlines were extended, ballot curing and harvesting allowed, pre-canvassing began before legal start dates, and signature verification tossed, all in direct contravention of election law in those swing states. The volume of “no-excuse” and “indefinitely confined” absentee ballots surged.

Republican observers were kept far from the ballot counting process under the guise of “social distancing” dogma. The percentage of rejected mail-in ballots was near zero, defying normal rejection rates. (The rejection rate for absentee votes in Georgia in 2016 was 6.4 percent; in 2020, it dropped to .35 percent.)

But despite the flagrant unlawfulness documented in the Texas, et al case, the Supreme Court concluded the Lone Star State “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas disagreed. “In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction,” Alito wrote December 11.

What, exactly, were Kavanaugh and Barrett thinking? As I asked after the court denied Texas’ standing, “what if Pennsylvania in the future allows noncitizens to vote legally in presidential elections? What if Michigan decides to give people of color two votes to compensate for past election ‘disenfranchisement?’”

Would Kavanaugh and Barrett, the alleged “originalists,” still turn a blind eye?
One has to assume, sadly, yes.

Fair-Weather Originalism

In another stunning broadside this week, Kavanaugh and Barrett again parted ways with the true originalists on the bench to side with Roberts as well as Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayer, and Stephen Breyer to reject two solid lawsuits related to Pennsylvania’s illegitimate election. (Take a moment to remember the fight for Kavanaugh and now envision him uniting with the most anti-conservative members of the court on a matter this consequential.)

Pennsylvania’s election, as I explained in November, was so corrupt as to have been disqualifying. Despite an obvious “red wave” in the Keystone State, Joe Biden allegedly won by 80,000 votes, earning 2 million of the state’s 2.5 million absentee ballots and 20 electoral votes.

He had a lot of help. Kathleen Boockvar, appointed secretary of state by Democratic Governor Tom Wolfe in 2019, arbitrarily rewrote several of the state’s already-lax election rules to amass an unprecedented volume of mail-in ballots that would favor Biden.

(Boockvar, named a defendant in several election lawsuits, coincidentally resigned this month amid a separate controversy at her office. Her dirty work was done.)

Numerous court challenges, including at the Supreme Court, were scuttled both before and after Election Day; Pennsylvania’s supermajority Democrat Supreme Court issued preposterous defenses of Boockvar’s actions. The highest court in the land was the last chance to redress the election’s many wrongs.

And thanks to the cowardice of Kavanaugh and Barrett—one can only assume since Kavanaugh changed his pre-election position on Pennsylvania, threats of promoting a “Big Lie” about election fraud got to him—the Supreme Court fell one vote shy of vetting two strong lawsuits filed separately by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and the Republican president of the state senate.

In the February 22 dissenting opinion, Thomas, Alito, and Neil Gorsuch argued the lawsuits did fall within the court’s purview. “[T]he Federal Constitution, not state constitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate federal elections,” Thomas wrote. “An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow.”

Thomas noted mail-in ballot use in Pennsylvania surged from four percent of the total cast in 2018 to 38 percent in 2020, a trend likely to continue in the future. “We have the opportunity to [address election integrity] almost two years before the next federal election cycle. Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling.”

“[T]he cases now before us are not moot,” Alito wrote with Gorsuch joining. While the justices insisted Pennsylvania’s extended mail-in ballot deadline did not change the outcome of its election, it’s hard for any party to say so with confidence given the state’s other rogue rules, which the court didn’t address.

What Is the Court Waiting For?

The court this week rejected unanimously several election lawsuits filed by other parties to contest elections in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona; the only remaining election lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court is Trump’s lawsuit against the Wisconsin Election Commission. The Badger State’s election, which Biden won by only 20,000 votes resulting in a gain of ten electoral votes, was as bad as Pennsylvania’s, I explained last November.

“One wonders what this Court waits for,” Thomas concluded in his dissent. “We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”

We certainly deserve and expect more from Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. We don’t know, as Thomas asked, what they’re waiting for—Trump’s exit from the political scene, perhaps? Or was their move more craven, an abdication of their sworn duty in a selfish attempt to fit in with the Trump-hating Beltway?

Here’s what we do know for certain: Their alliance with the liberal wing of the bench is not a betrayal of Republicans or the president responsible for their lofty, lifetime gigs—it’s a betrayal of the Constitution. Some blame for the chaos in future elections will fall firmly, and shamefully, on them.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Supreme Court Rejects Sidney Powell’s Election Fraud Petitions without Further Comment

MATT NAHAMMar 1st, 2021, 10:14 am

A November 19, 2020 photo shows Sidney Powell speaking during a press conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, DC. - US President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis reportedly said that Powell is not a member of the Trump legal team. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

It wasn’t an earth-shattering Monday morning when it came to Supreme Court orders, but court watchers may have noticed that the justices, without comment or explanation, jettisoned more lingering 2020 election challenges. It happened one week after SCOTUS cleared out several similar cases and the morning after Donald Trump repeated the “stolen” election lie to his loyal followers at CPAC.

The Supreme Court rejected two mandamus petitions that Sidney Powell and other “Kraken”-aligned lawyers filed in late December. Those cases were stylized as In re Tyler Bowyer, et al. and In Re William Feehan. The cases took issue with the election results in Arizona and Wisconsin, where Trump lost to Joe Biden.

“The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied,” the court said Monday. That’s it, that’s the order.
Screen-Shot-2021-03-01-at-10.04.25-AM.png


The matter-of-factness and brevity stands in stark contrast to the urgency and “public importance” that the lawyers communicated in the since-dismissed petitions.

“A submission directly to this Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus is unusual, but it has its foundation. While such relief is rare, this Court will grant it ‘where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken,'” each of the mandamus petitions said.

Each of the petitions also presented four questions for the court to answer:
A. Whether presidential electors have standing to challenge the outcome of a presidential election for fraud and illegality that cause the defeat of their candidate?
B. Whether federal courts have and should exercise jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over claims by presidential electors that the presidential election was stolen from them by fraud and illegality under color law in violation of their constitutional rights under the Elections and Electors, Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution?
C. Whether a claim by presidential electors to de-certify the results of a presidential election and enjoin voting in the electoral college by the rival slate of electors is barred by laches when it is brought within the state law statute of limitations for post-certification election contests, and before the post recount re- certification?
D. Whether the remedial powers of a federal court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 include invalidation of an unconstitutionally conducted election, and an injunction against presidential electors appointed in such an election from voting in the electoral college?
None of those questions were answered and the Supreme Court did not take up any of its time explaining why it did not do so.

Last week, an independent forensic audit in Maricopa County, Arizona found “no evidence of vote switching” by Dominion Voting Systems’ machines.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
It's reassuring to know that when Trump "cleans their clocks" in the 2024 election - ALL those "contests" will be turned away by the courts - since the current contests and the current court replies establish "legal precedent."

I feel a horn growing out of the center front top of my head...does it show?

Dobbin
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

House members threatened with arrest at Georgia State Capitol protest

The Democratic lawmakers were protesting the proposed election reform bills making their way through the House.
e1feb4ce-6f6a-4581-90d4-5002f89349d8_1920x1080.jpg


Author: Michael King (11ALIVE)
Published: 3:06 PM EST February 26, 2021
Updated: 6:42 PM EST February 26, 2021

ATLANTA — Several Democratic members of the Georgia House of Representatives joined in a spontaneous protest against Republican-led election reform bills at the Georgia State Capitol early Friday afternoon.

The House members, numbering about a dozen or so, according to 11Alive's Doug Richards, held signs and chanted in front of the large marble staircase in the capitol building, Richards said.

The protesters could be heard chanting, "Stop voter suppression."

Among the signs being held by the protesters included ones that said "Protect The Vote", "You Can't Stop The Revolution", and "Vote No on HB 531."

Eventually, a state trooper, using a megaphone presented himself and announced the protesters were in violation of a statute that suggested that they were disturbing the lawmakers while the General Assembly was in session.

"You will disperse immediately, or you will be arrested," the trooper said, using a bullhorn.
State Rep. Park Cannon (D-Atlanta) put her head in front of the bullhorn, causing the amplification to feed back into a screech. Another trooper grabbed Cannon by her elbow, encouraging her to move away.

Cannon protested the physical contact. And she confronted the trooper regarding the statute he had cited, pointing out that the House wasn't in session at that moment.

"Session is adjourned, so there is no disrupting of the session," Cannon said. Session is over! That is why all the members are out!"

Although the House had recessed for lunch, the Senate was still in session.
"Disperse immediately," a second trooper said, walking past Cannon.

"No! That is not true," Cannon said. "There is no disrupting of the members."

Other House members and television photographers could be seen pointing cameras at the confrontation on the stairs. State troopers quickly got an order to back away, and the confrontation de-escalated.

Following the confrontation, Richards said, the protesters sat down on the staircase and remained there. Cannon said she wanted a public apology from the trooper who touched her. She declined an offer of a private conversation.

The sit-in occupied the remainder of the House session, which re-convened, then adjourned within two hours.

There were no arrests.

Lawmakers protest at Georgia State Capitol
  • 2ab7a6b4-d25e-4281-9dcf-5893e8f31782_750x422.jpg



  • febc74d0-af0d-423e-9886-5c1765758c59_750x422.jpg

    WXIA
    Democratic lawmakers protested against Republican-led election reform bills at the Georgia State Capitol on Friday, Feb. 26, 2021.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
It's reassuring to know that when Trump "cleans their clocks" in the 2024 election - ALL those "contests" will be turned away by the courts - since the current contests and the current court replies establish "legal precedent."

I feel a horn growing out of the center front top of my head...does it show?

Dobbin
Are you pooping rainbows?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4i2uBVx0d0
7:35 min
Bronies - Visiting A My Little Pony Convention | World Of Weird | Wonder
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

4 Arrested In Texas On 150 Counts Of Voter Fraud

MONDAY, MAR 01, 2021 - 14:40
Authored by Isabel von Brugen via The Epoch Times,

Four people were arrested in Texas last month on 150 counts of voter fraud dating back to the 2018 Medina County Primary Election, according to reports.

The Texas attorney general’s Election Fraud Unit on Feb. 11 arrested Medina County Justice of the Peace Tomas Ramirez, and earlier detained Leonor Rivas Garza, Eva Ann Martinez and Mary Balderrama on election fraud allegations, News4SA reported.

According to a release from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office, the case involved allegations of vote harvesting at assisted living centers in Medina County in the 2018 Medina County Primary Election.

Ramirez faces one count of organized election fraud, one count of assisting voter voting ballot by mail, and 17 counts of unlawful possession of a ballot or ballot envelope, according to the news outlet.

Balderrama is charged with one count of organized election fraud, nine counts of illegal voting, two counts of unlawful possession of ballot or ballot envelope, one count of mail ballot application, two counts of unlawfully assisting voter voting by mail, two counts of tampering with government record, and eight counts of election fraud.

Garza faces a single count of organized election fraud, two counts of illegal voting, eight counts of unlawful possession of a ballot or ballot envelope, two counts of election fraud and four counts of fraudulent use of an absentee ballot by mail.

Martinez is charged with a single count of organized election fraud, nine counts of illegal voting, 28 counts of unlawful possession of ballot or ballot envelope, three counts of purportedly acting as an agent, five counts of tampering with government record, 14 counts of election fraud, and four counts of fraudulent mail ballot application, according to News4SA.

The Texas attorney general’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.

In a separate incident, Raquel Rodriguez, a Texas woman who bragged about being able to deliver thousands of votes for tens of thousands in cash was arrested in January on charges including election fraud and illegal voting.



Rodriguez was filmed during an undercover project by Project Veritas, an investigative journalism nonprofit. She was recorded in footage released last year that she could deliver “at least 5,000” votes “county-wide” for $55,000 in cash and that it would hire her “entire team.”

She acknowledged what she was discussing could land her prison time.

Based on the footage, Paxton, a Republican, opened an investigation. That probe led to the arrest, Paxton announced on Jan. 13.

Rodriguez faces a prison sentence of up to 20 years if convicted.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Trump: Supreme Court 'did not have the guts and the courage' to look into election concerns

by Mica Soellner, Breaking News Reporter |

| February 28, 2021 06:32 PM

Former President Donald Trump attacked the Supreme Court about their disregard to hear cases about concerns about election rules, zeroing in on the high court's refusal to hear a GOP-led case to challenge a Pennsylvania state court decision changing rules ahead of the 2020 election.

"Our election process is worse than that in many cases of the third-world country, you know that, you saw what was going on," Trump said during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Sunday. "Even if you consider nothing else, it is undeniable that election rules were illegally changed at the last minute and almost every swing state with the procedures rewritten by local politicians, you’re not allowed to do that, and local judges."

The former president emphasized that there are constitutional requirements state legislatures have to change or rewrite election rules, rather than local judges or officials, accusing the Supreme Court of lacking courage to take on the challenge.

"Regardless of your political views, this should concern you as a constitutional matter, and the Supreme Court did not have the guts and the courage to do anything about it. And neither did other judges," Trump said.

Last week, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 not to hear a case emanating from Pennsylvania that charged the state government and courts with usurping the state legislature in changing rules for mail in-ballots and voting deadlines, saying it was moot because the election was over.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed doubt that the changes affected the election but said the matter must be addressed for future elections to have credibility.

"One wonders what the Court waits for," Thomas wrote. "We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence."

During his presidency, Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting
The Right Scoop MAR. 1, 2021 9:31 AM BY THE RIGHT SCOOP72 COMMENTS

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case involving a challenge to two election laws in Arizona and one of them deals with ballot harvesting:
NBC NEWS – Two Arizona laws are at issue in the virtual oral arguments before the justices. One requires election officials to reject ballots cast in the wrong precincts.
The other concerns voting by mail and provides that only the voter, a family member or a caregiver can collect and deliver a completed ballot.
“Prohibiting unlimited third-party ballot harvesting is a commonsense means of protecting the secret ballot,” the state told the justices in court filings. The out-of-precinct rule is intended to prevent multiple voting, Arizona said.
But Arizona Democrats said the state has a history of switching polling places more often in minority neighborhoods and putting the polls in places intended to cause mistakes. Minorities move more often and are less likely to own homes, resulting in the need to change polling places, Democrats said.
Arizona far outpaces other states in discarding out-of-precinct ballots, rejecting 11 times more than the next-highest state. And minority voters are more likely to need help turning in their ballots, the challengers said. In many states where the practice is legal, community activists offer ballot collection to encourage voting.
A federal judge in Arizona rejected the challenges. But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, so the state appealed to the Supreme Court.
A challenge regarding the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court gutted in 2013, is also a part of this case:
The case also will be a test of one of the most important civil rights laws — the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court significantly scaled back in 2013.

In the past, the Voting Rights Act required states with histories of discrimination to get permission from courts or the Justice Department before changing election procedures. The test was whether would a change leave minority voters worse off.
But in 2013 the Supreme Court suspended the preclearance requirement, ruling that Congress failed to properly update the formula to determine which states should be covered.

Under what’s left of the law, the 9th Circuit said, state election provisions can be blocked if they disproportionately affect a racial minority’s ability to participate in the electoral process and elect candidates of their choice and if the state has a history of discriminating against voters in that minority group. It concluded that the two Arizona laws failed those legal tests.
But the lower courts have disagreed about how to tell whether a change in voting practice violates the law.

Arizona Republicans say the test should require proof that a challenged law causes a substantial disparity in opportunities for minority voters to participate in the election, not just an incremental burden. For example, the state says, when considering a challenge to a law closing the polls half an hour earlier, courts should consider the election system as a whole and look at other voting opportunities, such as voting by mail or early voting.
But Arizona Democrats say that the law does not require proof of a “substantial disparity” and that there is no requirement to meet a minimum percentage of minority voters affected to successfully challenge a change in the voting rules.

The test advocated by Arizona, the American Civil Liberties Union argued in a friend of court brief, would impose “a categorical approach under which laws that are relatively commonplace, or that do not make voting altogether impossible, are largely immune from liability.
But Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and other Republicans said the interpretation of the law advocated by Democrats would jeopardize any neutral voting law if it results in an unequal opportunity to vote whenever “a challenger identifies a minimal statistical racial disparity related to the law — and then points to completely separate, long past, invidious voting discrimination.”
NBC News reports that the Supreme Court will issue it’s ruling by the summer.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

A Fork in the Road For the “Windham Incident” – Meeting Tonight at 7 PM

By Jim Hoft
Published March 1, 2021 at 3:41pm
F1E545D1-1096-4AAD-A699-20FFD075018A.jpeg

Guest post by Ken Eyring

A reminder to stay engaged. The Windham Board of Selectman will hold a meeting tonight via zoom and in person at the Windham High School at 7p (details below). The meeting has one agenda item: the status of the “Windham Incident.” That’s what this meeting is about.

Who should run the audit? Who should define the process? How thorough should the audit be?

Who should be in control of the machines the AG wanted to “take possession” of last week?

What is the status of Senate Bill SB43? Should the town perform a thorough test of the town’s voting machines with forensic specialists? Most importantly, take advantage of the opportunity to speak up and share your thoughts and concerns.

The AG’s and SOS’s offices have been asked multiple times to perform an investigation by the Selectmen – and to my knowledge, the Selectmen have not been given the courtesy of a response. Sadly, the AG’s and SOS’s offices have said they have no intention of performing a meaningful investigation into the machines nor counting the ballots. When the people responsible for investigating the largest unexplained voting discrepancy in the state of New Hampshire appear to be disinterested – it’s easy to lose faith in government. When those concerns are reinforced by a State Senator with first hand knowledge and published in two different Op-Eds here and here (must reads) then it’s time for the Town of Windham to take control of the situation.

I am a Windham resident with standing! This is about our town! Our machines! Our ballots! Our elections!!! Windham residents, as well as all of New Hampshire, have a right to answers!

“When the people fear the government, there’s tyranny; when the government fears the people, there’s freedom.”
Thomas Jefferson

This is what Ben Franklin meant when he said we have been given a Republic “if we can keep it!”

You can attend the meeting in person at Windham High School, 64 London Bridge Rd, Windham 03087, or you can attend via Zoom (details below).

Town of Windham is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: Board of Selectman Public / Virtual Meeting
Time: Mar 1, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting
Join our Cloud HD Video Meeting
Meeting ID: 829 5529 4291
Passcode: BOS2020
One tap mobile
+16468769923,,82955294291#,,,,*7420333# US (New York)

Dial by your location
+1 646 876 9923 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 829 5529 4291
Passcode: 7420333

Find your local number: Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Webinars, Screen Sharing
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Published 10 hours ago
Pro-GOP group takes aim at House Democrats over massive election HR 1 reform bill

American Action Network targets 15 congressional districts controlled by House Democrats
Paul Steinhauser

By Paul Steinhauser | Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: An outside group that backs Republican causes is going up in 15 congressional districts controlled by House Democrats with ads spotlighting H.R. 1 – the Democrats' massive election reform and campaign finance bill.

The American Action Network (AAN) on Monday is unveiling a new issue advocacy campaign targeting "the corrupt liberal campaign finance bill." The ads, shared first with Fox News, will be seen in House districts with Democrats who are potentially vulnerable in next year's midterm elections, when Republicans hope to win back the majority in the chamber they lost in the 2018 midterm elections.

The Democracy Reform Task Force announced last week that all House Democrats co-sponsored the legislation, which is formally known as the For the People Act of 2021.

Democrats say their sweeping election reform bill, which is scheduled for a vote on Wednesday, will expand voting rights and "clean up corruption" in politics.

But Republicans slam the measure, saying it would lead to a federal government takeover of elections and accuse Democrats of trying to change election rules to benefit themselves.

The AAN digital ads argue that the measure would give every member of Congress up to $5 million in public funding for their campaigns.

"Alert. Liberals want public money for their campaigns," the ads read.

The ads urge the Democratic House members targeted "to oppose H.R. 1"
The pro-GOP group American Action Network on Monday is unveiling a new issue advocacy campaign targeting the House Democrats' massive election reform and campaign finance bill. The group's digital ads will be seen in 15 House districts with Democrats who are potentially vulnerable in next year's midterm elections.

The pro-GOP group American Action Network on Monday is unveiling a new issue advocacy campaign targeting the House Democrats' massive election reform and campaign finance bill.

The group's digital ads will be seen in 15 House districts with Democrats who are potentially vulnerable in next year's midterm elections.

The ads are going up in the congressional districts of Democratic Reps. Tom O'Halleran (AZ-01), Stephanie Murphy (FL-07), Carolyn Boudreaux (GA-07), Cindy Axne (IA-03), John Sarbanes (MD-03), Jared Golden (ME-02), Chris Pappas (NH-01), Tom Malinowski (NJ-07), Susan Wild (PA-07), Matt Cartwright (PA-08), Lizzie Fletcher (TX-07), Vicente Gonzalez (TX-15), Colin Allred (TX-32), Elaine Luria (VA-02) and Ron Kind (WI-03).

AAN says all 15 representatives, along with an additional 36 House Democrats, will be targeted by a phone call campaign.

"This bill is nothing more than a shameful attempt to shovel public funds to the campaign coffers of corrupt Washington liberals," AAN President Dan Conston told Fox News. "Especially in a time of unparalleled health and economic crisis, public funds should be used to help end the suffering of this pandemic – not to help Washington politicians get re-elected."

Democrats highlight that their bill would "improve access to the ballot box" by creating automatic voter registration across the country and by ensuring that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full voting rights restored. The bill will also expand early voting and enhance absentee voting by simplifying voting by mail. There was a surge in absentee voting during last year’s primaries and general election due to health concerns of in-person voting at polling stations amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The measure also commits Congress to deliver "full congressional voting rights and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia, which only statehood can provide," prohibits voter roll purges and aims to end "partisan gerrymandering" of congressional districts.

Republicans have repeatedly argued that the push for D.C. statehood is a political move to ensure two permanently Democratic U.S. Senate seats in what is an approximately nine-to-one Democrat-to-Republican jurisdiction.

If passed into law, the bill would also enhance federal support for voting system security, increase oversight of election system vendors, upgrade online political ad disclosure and require all organizations involved in political activity to disclose their large donors, create a multiple matching system for small-dollar donations, which would be paid for by a new surcharge on "corporate law breakers and wealthy tax cheats," tighten rules on super PACs, and beef up the enforcement powers of the Federal Election Commission.

In a jab at former President Donald Trump, the bill would also require future presidents to disclose their tax returns – which Trump, in a break from tradition, declined to do during his four years in the White House.

Republicans fiercely opposed an early version of the bill during the last congressional session.

Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky labeled it the "Democrat Politician Protection Act" and said in an op-ed that Democrats were seeking to "change the rules of American politics to benefit one party."

On Sunday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California said at the time that the bill would lead to a massive federal government takeover that would undermine the integrity of elections.

"We would lose our freedom," McCarthy said on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures."

AAN tells Fox News it is spending in the mid-five figures on the digital ads, which it says will run on platforms like Google.

The new campaign follows another modest ad buy by AAN a couple of weeks ago spotlighting the combustible issue of school reopenings amid the pandemic.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Michigan Begins Passing Election Integrity Bills: ‘A Lot of Things We Need to Change’
16
JEFF KOWALSKY/AFP via Getty Images
JEFF KOWALSKY/AFP via Getty Images
KYLE OLSON1 Mar 20215

Michigan state Rep. Matt Hall (R) told The Kyle Olson Show this week the legislature began passing bills intended to restore integrity to the election process.

Hall was chairman of the House Oversight Committee last session and held hearings that featured testimony from municipal workers, former President Donald Trump’s then-personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and counting observers who alleged officials did not follow laws and procedures.

Hall said there were concerns even before the election.

“The Michigan auditor general found that there were many people across our state who were over 120 years old, which is longer than the oldest living person and we found there’s over 300,000 people who were inactive voters who haven’t voted in over 20 years,” he said.

Hall said Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) knew those facts but still sent out “millions of unsolicited absentee ballot applications to this inactive voter list.” However, Hall insisted “we knew the list was inaccurate.”

He told The Kyle Olson Show House Bill 4127 will remove dead and inactive voters from the rolls, which would help to restore confidence in the election process. The House also passed a bill introduced by state Rep. Julie Calley (R) related to HB 4127.

Hall said the voters would not be automatically ineligible to vote, but rather would be required to provide evidence that they should remain registered.

He said he concluded after holding a series of hearings that “there’s a lot of things that we need to change in our election law in Michigan.”

Hall cited improved training for city and county clerks who conduct the voting processes and specifically signature verification.

He also said the legislature should prevent the secretary of state from sending unsolicited absentee ballot applications, which a secretary had never sent before. Benson used coronavirus relief funds from the federal government to pay for the roughly $5 million expenditure.

While Republicans control the legislature, Hall said he has to remind constituents who are concerned about this issue that the state elected Democrats as governor, attorney general, and secretary of state, and in 2020, Democrats gained the majority on the state Supreme Court.

“What we’ve seen during the pandemic and also through the election is that these Democrats will just exceed their authority. I mean, they’ll just break laws and if you don’t have judges that will defend the laws, that’s how we get in this situation,” Hall told The Kyle Olson Show.

He floated the idea of organizing a ballot initiative if Whitmer rejects the proposals.

“We’re going to do everything we can to try to get this through and signed by the governor, but if we don’t, we’re going to have to look at other options,” Hall said.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Beattie on the Jan. 6 mysteries surrounding Capitol Hill police officer Sicknick’s death
Bannons War Room Published March 1, 2021 1,859 Views

Rumble video on website 6:32 min
Rumble — Revolver’s Darren Beattie returns with new information regarding the Jan. 6 mysteries surrounding Capitol Hill police officer Brian Sicknick’s death. Beattie exposes Big Media’s lies from fire extinguishers to bear spray, and says his next bombshell report will hit Wednesday.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Lawyers For 18-Year-Old Capitol Rioter Want Him Released To His Parents

February 26, 20216:05 PM ET
Dina Temple- Raston  -  Square
DINA TEMPLE-RASTON

gettyimages-1294933541_slide-65313b578e8217fab9922b75de3182bbb7416cc6-s1400-c85.jpg


Bruno Cua, 18, is allegedly seen here with his back to the camera, holding a tan jacket. Prosecutors say he entered the Senate Chamber of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 with a handful of other rioters.

Before Jan. 6, 18-year-old Bruno Cua was best known in his small town of Milton, Ga., as a great builder of treehouses. These were big, elaborate creations with ladders and trapdoors and framed-out windows. They were so impressive, neighbors paid Cua to build them for their kids.

The world outside Milton, Ga., met Cua in a rather more dramatic way. He was allegedly seen in multiple videos standing in the Senate Chamber of the U.S. Capitol with a handful of other rioters. The videos have since gone viral: There's a man in combat gear, now identified as Air Force veteran Larry Brock, Jr., chiding rioters, including Cua, about why they shouldn't sit in Vice President Mike Pence's chair. Cua seemed confused. "They can steal an election, but we can't sit in their chairs?" he asked.

In a defense motion filed on Friday, Bruno Cua's lawyers said their client "is an impressionable 18-year-old kid who was in the middle of finishing his online coursework to graduate from high school when he was arrested."

They paint a portrait of a young man swept up by events. "In many ways, he is less of an 'adult' than many teenagers," the motion said. "He has never lived away from his parents. He has lived his entire life in the area immediately surrounding Atlanta."

Prosecutors, for their part, see Cua through a very different lens. In a criminal complaint, they point to Cua's social media posts in the run-up and aftermath to Jan. 6 to suggest that he was someone who was genuinely inspired by former President Donald Trump and intent on violence.

Cua's case is a stark example of just how powerful misinformation can be. Both prosecution and defense agree that he was radicalized by what he read online, and the decision to embrace the falsehoods he discovered in chatrooms and social media changed the course of his life. And he wasn't alone. More than 250 people have been charged so far with breaching the Capitol and most of them, to varying degrees, were motivated to storm the building by the falsehoods they had been reading online and in social media for months.

cua-58fc1dfc8de54c0b8e5df1428c7771c1a935ef52-s1400-c85.jpeg


Bruno Cua's lawyers said he was "an impressionable 18-year-old kid" swept up by the events of Jan. 6. But prosecutors say his social media posts ahead of the Capitol riot show a young man intent on violence.''

The Cua family

"President Trump is calling us to FIGHT!" Cua allegedly wrote on Parler days before the siege.

"It's time to take our freedom back the old fashioned way."

Cua's lawyers say the messages prosecutors see as threatening were the "idle chatter of an extremely passionate, but very naive, teenager who was parroting what he heard and saw on social media." They made clear that these ideas weren't things that Cua came up with on his own, instead they were fed to him online. He was radicalized, they said, by social media.

According to the defense motion, Cua had traveled to Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6 with his parents to attend a Trump rally. His parents were long-time Trump supporters and Cua had become one too. They had walked to the Capitol together, as a family, when a melee erupted on the Capitol steps. Bruno Cua asked his parents if he could go and take a closer look. They agreed and Cua quickly disappeared into the crowd. His parents only found out later, his lawyers said, that he had entered the Capitol and walked into the Senate chamber.

Surveillance video inside the Capitol allegedly showed him wearing a dark sweatshirt, a jean jacket, a red "Make America Great Again" hat and gray gloves wielding a baton and trying to open various office doors.

In a criminal complaint, federal prosecutors cite a Jan. 6 Instagram post in which Cua allegedly wrote, "Yes, we physically fought our way in." Another post read: "Yes, for everyone asking I stormed the [Capitol] with hundreds of thousands of patriots. I'll do a whole video explaining what happened, this is history. What happened was unbelievable."

The FBI allegedly received two tips identifying Cua as the young man who stood in the Senate chamber on Jan. 6. His clothing helped authorities identify his movements and actions throughout the Capitol that day, they said.

Another tipster, according to court documents, told authorities that Cua had been talking about going to Washington on his Parler account for days and "actively encouraged the events on the sixth for 11 days leading up to the domestic terrorist attack," the complaint said.

Cua, who is believed to be the youngest person so far to be charged with storming the Capitol, allegedly assaulted a federal officer. His lawyers say that as part of his conditions for release he would be willing to stay off social media and be monitored in his parent's house.

Since the events in January, Cua has completed three online courses: College Algebra, Intro to Government and Intro to Marketing, his lawyers said. He is three classes away from a high school diploma, they added.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
1614714104742.png
_________________________________________________________________


“Supreme Court’s Failure – Completes the Implosion of Each of the Three Branches of Government” – Attorney Sidney Powell Responds to SCOTUS Decision on Election Fraud Cases

By Jim Hoft
Published March 2, 2021 at 7:30am

Sidney-Powell-on-Amer-Thought-Leaders-600x332.jpg


Last Monday the United States Supreme Court refused to review the Pennsylvania 2020 Election cases.

The court made the announcement on Monday morning.

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented from the denial.
On Monday, following their inaction from last week, the US Supreme Court rejected without comment or explanation, lingering 2020 election challenges by Attorney Sidney Powell in Arizona and Wisconsin.

The Supreme Court refused to secure the integrity of the US elections.

Later on Monday night Attorney Sidney Powell released a statement on the refusal of the court to hear the election fraud cases.

Sidney Powell says the ruling completes the implosion of each of our three branches of government into the rubble of the sinkhole of corruption.

Via Attorney Sidney Powell:
My comment for the press on SCOTUS rulings today: “The Supreme Court’s failure to date to address the massive election fraud and multiple constitutional violations that wrought a coup of the presidency of the greatest country in world history completes the implosion of each of our three branches of government into the rubble of a sinkhole of corruption.
It is an absolute tragedy for the Rule of Law, the future of what was a Republic, and all freedom-loving people around the world.”
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Wray Says No Evidence Antifa, Left-Wing Groups Played a Role in January 6 Capitol Riot (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila
Published March 2, 2021 at 11:19am
IMG_8938.jpg

Disgraced FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the US Senate on Tuesday in his first testimony since the US Capitol riot on January 6th.

Wray said there is no evidence of “fake Trump supporters” at the US Capitol.

Director Wray also said there is no evidence left-wing groups or Antifa played a role in the Capitol riot under questioning by Democrat Senator Leahy.

To date, Wray has barely acknowledged the existence of Antifa and he struggled to utter the “A” word during his hearing on Tuesday.

“We have not to date seen any evidence of anarchist violent extremists or people subscribing to Antifa in connection with the 6th,” Wray said.

WATCH:

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1366780223233138695
.38 min

Wray’s testimony contradicts statements made by ex-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund and other eye witnesses who were on the ground at the Capitol on January 6.

Last Tuesday ex-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund dropped a bombshell on lawmakers in his opening statement during a hearing before the Senate Rules and Homeland Security committees.

Mr. Sund testified that according to intelligence gathered by law enforcement groups, members of the Proud Boys, white supremacist groups, ANTIFA and other extremist groups were expected to participate on January 6 and that they may be inclined to become violent.

According to a former FBI agent on the ground at the US Capitol, at least one bus load of Antifa goons infiltrated the Trump rally as part of a false flag operation.

Michael Waller, a senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy specializing in propaganda, political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion, said he was at the Capitol on January 6 and witnessed:
  • Plainclothes militants. Militant, aggressive men in Donald Trump and MAGA gear at a front police line at the base of the temporary presidential inaugural platform;
  • Agents-provocateurs. Scattered groups of men exhorting the marchers to gather closely and tightly toward the center of the outside of the Capitol building and prevent them from leaving;
  • Fake Trump protesters. A few young men wearing Trump or MAGA hats backwards and who did not fit in with the rest of the crowd in terms of their actions and demeanor, whom I presumed to be Antifa or other leftist agitators; and
  • Disciplined, uniformed column of attackers. A column of organized, disciplined men, wearing similar but not identical camouflage uniforms and black gear, some with helmets and GoPro cameras or wearing subdued Punisher skull patches.
Well known Antifa-Insurgence leader John Earl Sullivan was arrested in Utah after the US Capitol riots.

Antifa protester John Sullivan was caught on video posing as a Trump supporter during the rioting at the US Capitol on January 6th.

Despite all of the reports indicating that Antifa played a role in the January 6 riot, Wray and the media continue to blame President Trump and his supporters.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Seriously?… FBI Director Chris Wray Testifies There Is No Evidence of “Fake Trump Supporters” at US Capitol During Riot

By Jim Hoft
Published March 2, 2021 at 10:05am

FBI Director Chris Wray testified before the US Senate on Tuesday in his first testimony since the US Capitol riot on January 6th.

Wray told the Senate today the riot in the US Capitol was “domestic terrorism.”
Chris Wray also said there was NO EVIDENCE of “fake Trump supporters” present at the US Capitol that day.

1614716800987.png

Antifa-BLM organizer John Sullivan was at the US Capitol and bragged about wearing a MAGA hat during the riots where he broke a window and stormed the US Capitol.

jayden-counter-intel.jpg


Chris Wray and the FBI also completely ignored BLM and Antifa posting photos bragging online about storming the US Capitol.


Obviously, the once-great FBI and Chris Wray cannot be trusted.
 
Top