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

[marsh]

'Who Are These Outsiders?' Big Tech $$$$ – Zuck Bucks – Paid Government Election Offices to Become Turnout Machines for Biden in 2020 Election

pjmedia.com

'Who Are These Outsiders?' Big Tech $$$$ – Zuck Bucks – Paid Government Election Offices to Become Turnout Machines for Biden in 2020 Election

BY VICTORIA TAFT MAR 23, 2021 12:07 AM ET

AP Photo/Morry Gash
Joe Biden boasted last fall from his basement that he had the best “voter fraud organization” in the country. We thought it was one of his typical malapropisms, but it turns out, he may not have been kidding around.

Beginning last year, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook joined with Google and other high-tech companies and NGOs to grant hundreds of millions of dollars to fund already taxpayer-funded elections across the country, with the express purpose of defeating Donald Trump. A public-interest law group says those dollars were used to take over election offices and use local government apparatus to turn out Democrat voters to get rid of Trump. As previously reported in December by PJ Media colleague J. Christian Adams, this was done to great effect on behalf of Joe Biden in multiple cities and counties throughout the swing and other states.

Now, the evidence is piling up even higher and deeper.


The Amistad Law Project, a project of the Thomas More Society, a public-interest research group, looked into the funding of the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). The latest fruits of that investigation into its election efforts have begun to be revealed. Public disclosures, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and other findings have centered on Wisconsin’s and Philadelphia’s experiences with the CTCL, with more revelations to come from other cities and counties.

While the pretext for this “Zuck Bucks,” as some call them, funding was to pay for extra COVID expenses, there was far more going on behind the scenes, according to the Amistad director, former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline.

Kline says that on the surface, this might be explained away by saying campaigns do this all the time. But not like this. Kline believes private Big Tech money was used “to purchase government to … [get] involved in partisan activities.”

Here’s the difference, Zuckerberg, the Skoll Foundation, Google, and others in Big Tech, paid well over $400 million in to Center for Tech in Civic Life and they purchased government to do these things. So this is government getting involved in partisan activities.

Kline says the plan came directly from Obama campaign chair-turned-tech executive David Plouffe’s playbook entitled, “A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump.”

Like Capital Research discovered while looking into Georgia’s elections and as PJ Media colleague J Christian Adams put it in his piece called “Real Kraken: What Really Happened to Donald Trump in the 2020 Election,” private money was given to government and manipulated into a turnout machine for Joe Biden.

Flush with hundreds of millions in new cash, government election offices turned those donations into manpower, new equipment, and street muscle to turn often sluggish and incompetent urban election offices into massive Biden turnout machines across the country – in Madison, Milwaukee, Detroit, Lansing, Philadelphia, and Atlanta among dozens of others.

Those millions were used to hire local activists as city employees to drive around and collect ballots. The millions bought new printers and scanners to accommodate mail ballots. Philadelphia established brand new satellite election offices across the most Biden-friendly neighborhoods in the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The millions bought scores of convenient drop boxes across the same neighborhoods where mail ballots could be conveniently dropped. Even though laws limited third parties from collecting and dropping off multiple ballots, people were photographed dropping off bundles of ballots at the boxes.

The old saw about “people are policy” couldn’t have been more true in this scenario.

CTCL admits that most of the grant funding went to new personnel who were there to help this noble cause.

It is no surprise that election offices overwhelmingly spent grant funds on hiring additional workers, incentivizing workers with hazard pay, and compensating overtime work. One official lamented that the dire conditions in 2020 “all combined to place election staff in the most difficult working environment in the history of elections.” Even without the pandemic’s complications, they cited the “long hours, denial of leave time, and high-stress environment” and the “historically low pay for elections personnel,” which makes it difficult to maintain staff morale and retain educated and experienced staff. The grant money brought another election official to tears because he’d been struggling to pay his staff, and he used the funds to give them hazard pay raises.

“Helping” those “heroic” elections workers who worked under conditions that “brought [an] elections worker to tears” was the storyline and, in fairness, might have been true in some cases.

But Kline arrived at a different conclusion about what this meant after reading the emails, studying the grant documents, and seeing how, basically, the enterprise was used “to turn out Democrats in Democrat strongholds,” to further “a political strategy to defeat Donald Trump.”

Kline was on John Solomon’s podcast recently and revealed that those new hires essentially took over local elections offices, crowding out the people hired to do the job in the first place.

He says that’s what happened in Wisconsin beginning in May of 2020. The group’s first move in Wisconsin was to go to the mayor of Racine, Cory Mason, and give him Zuck Bucks and to pay four more cities to apply for more free money from the CTCL.

When you go back and look at how they used the money, they did outreach, they did clear back in May $100,000 to the partisan Democrat Mayor of Racine and said, ‘”look, here’s what we want you to do. We know that there’s state election laws governing an election. But we want you to go get these four other cities – give them money to ask us for money. And then you can design your own plan for an election. And we’re gonna call it the ‘safe election plan.'”

Kline believes the plan was always to increase turnout by dictating policies and new rules that would be implemented in order to get the big bucks.

In Philadelphia, the CTC grant which gave that city $10,000,000 and said ‘you must have 800 satellite voting locations or we’re going to take back all our money. Now what’s that have to do with safety?

It’s saying you’re going to be mobile ballot pick up. You might argue that’s for safety but it’s primarily turnout focused.

And this is how that additional help worked out.

Beginning in July, the Wisconsin election clerk in Green Bay starts writing emails saying “who are these outsiders? They don’t know about our law. They’re from Illinois, some of them. They don’t know about our election. Why are they here trying to tell us what to do?”

And they [the CTCL paid employees] keep pushing and pushing and edging her out. By October, two of her clerks came to her in tears because of the bullying of these outside groups.

What happened was the mayor of Racine, with that CTCL money and that grant in May, reached out to Green Bay at the direction of CTCL and brought in Green Bay into this plan and they got the mayor. So the mayor invited these outsiders in to run the election in order to take their money.

Green Bay Republicans have called for Mayor Eric Genrich’s resignation because of the outside influence by CTCL and others over elections. The man sent to Green Bay to be the point man for CTCL and a “sister organization” called the National Vote at Home Institute was Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein.

Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, a former Democratic operative, who was working for the Vote at Home Institute. He helped the city with the election as part of a $1.6 million grant from the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

“I think it’s really important to note that grant was accepted, approved without a dissenting vote of our common council,” said Genrich.

But Kline believes that Spitzer-Rubenstein’s presence in Green Bay was not benign or altruistic.

In October, an affiliate organization – these are ten leftist organizations – ran a shadow government, thanks to Zuckerberg money that ran the election, a sister organization called the National Vote at Home Institute, which CTCL brought into play, they send a person there, by the name of Rubenstein – Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein – and Mr. Spitzer-Rubenstein says, “we cure ballots, fix ballots that are flawed why don’t you have us do this for Green Bay like we’re doing for Madison, Wisconsin?”

The mayor says the outside groups didn’t “cure” — fix ballots — but Kline’s information says they did.

Curing is when a ballot comes in and it doesn’t have the proper information – they’re required by law to make sure that a ballot is cast properly by a valid voter. It might not have an address or it might not have a signature that is flawed, it doesn’t match.

Outsiders, paid by outsiders, determined whether some ballots would be counted. It’s nothing short of outrageous and illegal.

This is several violations in Wisconsin law. One is, we don’t know how he cured them. Two, there’s no transparency, no Repbulicans in the room and generally when ballots are handled you need members of both parties there. That’s basic campaign law so that you can ensure that things are handled correctly.

Furthermore, the alleged “bullying” by Spitzer-Rubenstein drove out the duly appointed elections officer in charge, according to Kline, and left the hand-picked Big Tech outsider in charge of the Green Bay elections office one month before the election. He had control over the ballots.

Micheal Spitzer-Rubenstein ends up running – they edge out the [election clerk] so much he writes some emails saying ‘look, I’m being bullied, I’m being marginalized … I can’t take it anymore, they’re not letting me do my job. I’m taking a leave of absence.’ This is October.

It was Michael Spencer Rubenstein who ran that election.

We have the contract with the hotel that was the counting facility and in that contract they say all the keys go to Michael Spencer Rubenstein. Nobody gets a key unless he says they get one.

But if you can believe it, it got worse. Much worse. People who were required to get a witness to attest that they were the ones filling out their own ballots got a witness alright. The Zuck Bucks were used to buy a professional witness who attested to the veracity of the ballots by multitudes of strangers.

The Zuckerberg money was used to hire a professional witness [for absentee/mail in ballots]. The reason you have a witness is because somebody knows you and they’re going to verify it was actually you that filled out the ballot. But if you have a professional witness, they don’t know you. [laughs] It kind of undercuts the purpose for a witness. In any event, Rubenstein says, we’ll do this; we will handle the ballots.

And those measures had real-world results in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

In Wisconsin, the emails talk about ‘we can get you geofencing technology to look for areas to increase turnout. And all of this was happening where Democrats routinely get between 85% to 90% of the vote.

In Philadelphia it would increase turnout by 25% to 35%. That gives the Democrat candidate a 100,000 votes and Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania by 80,000.
So all of this big money and this focus on turnout directly into the urban core that David Plough said that any candidate against … Trump must win in 2020 and it’s all gonna be based on turnout.

Indeed, as J. Christian Adams reported in PJ Media in December, activists were sent to concentrated areas to turn out the vote in Democrat-rich areas but not in areas where Republicans were concentrated. Of course.

In Philadelphia and the surrounding urban counties that received millions of dollars in CLTC grants, turnout exploded.
The plan worked.

In case you still don’t follow: Hundreds of millions of private charitable dollars flowed into key urban county election offices in battleground states. The same private philanthropic largess did not reach red counties. Urban counties were able to revolutionize government election offices into Joe Biden turnout machines.

Adams believes, as an elections lawyer, that the plan was marginally legal. The Safe Election Plan was, in Kline’s view, illegal from the start.

Now, first of all, that’s a problem. The [US] Constitution vests authority for the elections in the state, not local, government. Secondly, the state legislature is asked to treat all the voters equally. …So these rules apply to state governments and that’s one of the reasons why the federal government requires a state plan, not a city plan, for elections.

The only way to find out is one lawsuit at a time or appealing to state legislatures to halt the unethical practice.

Elections officials all over the country were given the CTCL money. CTCL said the money was for struggling elections offices, but tellingly, Kline says many municipalities had balances left over from their regular budgets.

With 2,500 cities and counties signing on to get free money in exchange for changing the way they run elections, you can expect to hear more revelations – and better understand why Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.

As Adams reported, “the plan worked.”

 

[marsh]

Sidney Powell Seeks to Dismiss Dominion’s $1.3 Billion Lawsuit

www.theepochtimes.com

Sidney Powell Seeks to Dismiss Dominion’s $1.3 Billion Lawsuit

March 23, 2021 15:06, Last Updated: March 23, 2021 18:57
By Jack Phillips

Attorney Sidney Powell, who filed third-party lawsuits to aid former President Donald Trump in his post-election legal fight, is seeking to dismiss a $1.3 billion lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems filed against her.

Powell said via her attorneys that the lawsuit should be dismissed as it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction, while adding that her claims about Dominion were protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Her team also requested that the lawsuit be moved to Texas from the District of Columbia if it isn’t thrown out.

“Reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process,” her lawyers said in a motion (pdf) filed on March 22. “Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based.”
Dominion, in a statement to Bloomberg News in response to her motion, said Powell’s lawsuit contradicts her previous statements.

“Powell’s attempt to dismiss the case contradicts her claim that she wants to present her evidence in court,” Dominion attorney Tom Clare said. “Dominion Voting Systems is eager for the case to move forward and intends to hold Powell accountable.”

But Powell’s lawyers contended on March 22 that “all the allegedly defamatory statements attributed to defendants were made as part of the normal process of litigating issues of momentous significance and immense public interest,” adding that “the statements were tightly focused on the legal theories they were advancing in litigation and the evidence they had presented, or were going to present, to the courts in support of their claims” of election fraud.

Her lawyers further argued that Powell’s claims about Dominion and election fraud post-Nov. 3, 2020, were “public announcements,” saying they served to disclose the “status of cases” that were filed in court.

“Such announcements are routine by lawyers engaged in public interest litigation, including the U.S. Justice Department,” Powell’s lawyers said.

Dominion also filed lawsuits seeking $1.3 billion each against MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

In its lawsuit against Powell filed in January, Dominion said that she “caused unprecedented harm” to the firm.

“As a result of the defamatory falsehoods peddled by Powell—in concert with likeminded allies and media outlets who were determined to promote a false preconceived narrative—Dominion’s founder, Dominion’s employees, Georgia’s governor, and Georgia’s secretary of state have been harassed and have received death threats, and Dominion has suffered enormous harm,” Dominion’s lawyers said in January.

Dominion’s lawyers stated that they sent a letter to Powell formally warning her to stop making statements about the company or she would face legal action. The suit also listed “Defending the Republic, Inc.,” a company that Powell used for fundraising purposes as a defendant.

Separately, the Supreme Court on March 1 rejected Powell’s lawsuits challenging the results in Arizona and Wisconsin—offering no comment.

One of Powell’s mandamus petitions stated: “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.’”

Powell appeared alongside Trump’s lawyers, including Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, in December as they announced a series of legal challenges after the election. About a week later, Giuliani confirmed that Powell wasn’t part of Trump’s team.

 

[marsh]

Election 'Safety' Grants May Have Swung Arizona to Biden, Report Finds

Arizona counties that got Mark Zuckerberg-financed grants saw turnout by Democrats increase by at least 36%.

www.dailysignal.com

Election ‘Safety’ Grants May Have Swung Arizona to Biden, Report Finds
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / March 23, 2021

• 

Arizona turned out to be a pivotal state in Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump. Pictured: Staffers count votes Nov. 5 at the Maricopa County Elections Department in Phoenix two days after the presidential election. (Photo: Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images)

Money from the founder of Facebook touted as being for safe elections during the pandemic may have affected the outcome of the presidential race in Arizona by driving up Democrat turnout, according to a government watchdog report.

The grant from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan focused more on “voter education” than personal protective equipment to guard against COVID-19, the report says.

The Zuckerbergs gave a total of $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a left-leaning technology group, that in turn issued grants to 2,500 election offices in 49 states.

The spending included $5 million for Arizona, according to preliminary data by the Foundation for Government Accountability, the watchdog group.

Arizona turned out to be one of the most pivotal states in Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s election upset of President Donald Trump.

About 60% of Arizona’s 15 counties received the Zuckerberg grants, but more than half of the money—$2.9 million—went to Maricopa County, the state’s largest jurisdiction and also the fourth-most populous U.S. county, according to the Foundation for Government Accountability report.

In final official results in Arizona, Biden got 1.67 million votes or 49.4% to win the state’s 11 electoral votes; Trump got 1.66 million votes or 49.1%.

Biden won five of the state’s 15 counties Nov. 3. In four of the Biden-carried counties that received the grants, the number of Democratic voters increased by 36% or more.

Maricopa County had an increase of 48% in Democratic turnout, from 702,907 in 2016 to 1.04 million in 2020. In the one Biden county that didn’t get the funding, Democratic turnout increased by 12%.

Maricopa County solidified plans to provide polling locations large enough to accommodate physical distancing, increase early voting locations, and give information to voters about the new election model before the grant money arrived, said Megan Gilbertson, communications director for the Maricopa County Elections Department.

“The county initially budgeted about $17 million for the general election, which was approved by the [county] Board of Supervisors in 2019, well before the COVID-19 pandemic,” Gilbertson told The Daily Signal in an email. “The county used four grants to fund projects and services beyond the baseline budget: CARES funding from the federal government, AZVoteSafe funding from the Arizona governor’s office, and two grants from non-profit organizations.”

Gilbertson added:

Much of the added costs were for PPE [personal protective equipment], renting large locations to serve as polling locations, and overtime costs for poll workers who worked up to three weeks.

While the grant funding helped to offset the cost to taxpayers, it’s important to note that the county’s election plans were solidified well before the grants were awarded.

Maricopa County narrowly went for Trump in 2016 over Democrat Hillary Clinton, then went for Biden over Trump in 2020 by a significant amount.

“Trump was able to increase his vote total by almost 250,000 votes [in Maricopa County], but miraculously, Biden was able to exceed Clinton’s performance by 337,000 or so,” Trevor Carlsen, senior research fellow for the Foundation for Government Accountability, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “That was enough to make up the difference.”

Maricopa is a swing county, while the four other counties were Democratic counties. The report looks only at these counties that went for Biden.

By contrast, Santa Cruz County, a Democratic-leaning county that didn’t get grant money, had only a 12% increase in turnout by Democrats—about one-third of the increase in other counties.

“It’s an interesting comparison when you look at the five counties, four of which got the money and one that didn’t, how Democratic turnout fared,” Carlsen said.

A spokesperson for the Center for Tech and Civic Life did not respond to phone and email messages from The Daily Signal last week or before publication this week.

The CTCL website says the $350 million in grants went to 2,500 U.S. election offices in 49 states to “operationalize safe and secure elections.” It says the grants helped to recruit and train poll workers for safe, in-person voting and election officials who “proactively invited more people to vote by mail” and who “adjusted policies, procedures, and resources to manage an increase in mail ballots.”

Beyond the Zuckerbergs, the Center for Tech and Civic Life mostly is funded by left-of-center donors such as the Democracy Fund, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, according to the Washington-based Capital Research Center, which tracks nonprofits.

The CTCL was founded in 2012 by Tiana Epps-Johnson, Donny Bridges and Whitney May, who previously worked together at the New Organizing Institute, which The Washington Post referred to as “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts of digital wizardry.”

The report by the Foundation for Government Accountability notes that “funds were largely requested for get-out-the-vote efforts, influenced voter turnout in favor of Democrats, and may have impacted the results of the election in some states—including in the critical swing state of Arizona.”

The report refers to the money from the Zuckerbergs as “Zuckerbucks.”
“On average, counties that received Zuckerbucks saw the Democratic presidential candidate’s share of the vote increase compared to the 2016 election,” the report says, adding:

For example, in Maricopa County, the only county in the state to flip in the 2020 election, President Trump increased his vote total by more than 248,000 votes yet lost the county to Biden. In 2020, Biden improved on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 vote total in the county by more than 337,000 votes. This nearly 90,000-vote difference cannot be explained by registration increases.

While Democratic voter registration in Maricopa County has grown more than Republican registration since the 2016 election, the net increase was fewer than 50,000 votes and registered Republicans still outnumber registered Democrats by more than 100,000 voters. In counties that went for Biden in 2020, Zuckerbucks seem to have helped boost Democratic turnout.

The Center for Tech and Civic Life gave grants to five of the 10 Arizona counties that Trump won, according to separate research from Capital Research Center. These five Trump counties accounted for about 11% of the state’s vote.

In counties that got the grants, the nonprofit watchdog said, Biden increased voter share over Clinton in 2016 by 81%, or 694,469 votes.

Biden carried Maricopa County with 50.3% of the vote, accounting for about 62% of Arizona’s total. Trump had won the county with 49.1% in 2016.

In a comparison among jurisdictions that got the Zuckerberg grants, the report says, Apache County saw a 36% increase in voter participation from 2016 to 2020; Coconino saw a 38% increase; and Pima County a 36% increase.

Facebook did not respond to email inquiries about the grants made possible by its founder and his wife.

A spokesperson for Chan’s “family office” referred to an October statement from Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook that said:

Between Covid and insufficient public funding for elections, there are unprecedented challenges for election officials working to make sure everyone can vote safely this year. …

To be clear, I agree with those who say that government should have provided these funds, not private citizens. I hope that for future elections the government provides adequate funding. But absent that funding, I think it’s critical that this urgent need is met.

The report from the Foundation for Government Accountability contends that much of the money sent to Arizona went to “voter education” and other purposes that weren’t related to COVID-19:

For example, while a memorandum to the Coconino Board of Supervisors says the grant will be used to ‘supplement election work recruitment and training, and other security and safety measures,’ it does so only after first pointing out that the grant provides ‘additional capacity to increase voter education efforts.’ Other election jurisdictions spent absolutely nothing on PPE and COVID-19-related items whatsoever.

The Foundation for Government Accountability has looked at grants in Florida and Iowa as well as Arizona, and the COVID-19 argument doesn’t entirely stand up with how the grants were used, the foundation’s Carlsen told The Daily Signal.

“His defense was that this is a special case because of COVID-19, which circles back to one of the points that we made in the Florida brief and there is inclusion of that in our [Arizona] brief here,” Carlsen said of Zuckerberg.

“If it’s for COVID-19 specifically, one would think the money would be spent accordingly and there is evidence to suggest that PPE [personal protective equipment] was only a portion of how the funds were eventually spent,” Carlsen said. “And there were things that seemingly were not efforts to protect against the spread of COVID-19, [indicating] that the money was spent beyond that initial scope.”

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjQGxgiSF0U
2:18 min

HEY FOLKS IN GEORIGA - Participate In History! VOLUNTEER!
•Streamed live 8 hours ago


Jovan Hutton Pulitzer
HEY FOLKS IN GEORIGA - Participate In History! VOLUNTEER! JOIN THE EFFORT! HEY FOLKS IN GEORIGA - Participate In History! VOLUNTEER! JOIN THE EFFORT!

Volunteer to get trained to help "scan the ballots" in Georgia!

 

[marsh]

The 'Scan the Ballots' Effort Is Moving Forward In Georgia Involving Jovan Pulitizer's Technique of Forensically Reviewing Ballots from the 2020 Election | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

A recount is in the works in Georgia. A week ago we reported that a judge agreed that the group “Voter GA” could inspect Fulton County Georgia ballots from the 2020 election: Georgia Judge Announces He May Unseal Fulton County Absentee Ballots for Fraud Investigation and Review The inspection is...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The ‘Scan the Ballots’ Effort Is Moving Forward In Georgia Involving Jovan Pulitizer’s Technique of Forensically Reviewing Ballots from the 2020 Election

By Joe Hoft
Published March 24, 2021 at 8:40am

A recount is in the works in Georgia.

A week ago we reported that a judge agreed that the group “Voter GA” could inspect Fulton County Georgia ballots from the 2020 election:

UPDATE: Judge Rules that the Group ‘Voter GA’ Can Unseal Fulton County Georgia Ballots and Inspect Them for Invalid Votes in the 2020 Election

The inspection is moving forward as Jovan Pulitzer is asking for volunteers for a recount in Fulton County Georgia.

According to Jovan, “Georgia is ready to go to scan the ballots.”

Pulitzer shares:

Remember, this is history. This is history. You are about to see one of the pivotal events in history that will be talked about, literally, in text books and in history from here on out. It will definitely be talked about when it comes to elections in the future.”

Will Georgia be the first state in the Union where fraudulent results will be identified in a forensic audit? No doubt the largest bucket of garbage ballots were recorded to steal this ultra-red God-loving state.

 

[marsh]

Chuck Schumer: State Voting Laws 'One of the Greatest Threats We Have to Modern Democracy in America'

Chuck Schumer likened basic election integrity measures embraced by several states, such as voter ID, to the era of Jim Crow.

www.breitbart.com

Watch – Chuck Schumer: State Voting Laws ‘One of the Greatest Threats We Have to Modern Democracy in America’
Senate Rules and Administration Committee

Video on website 10:46 min

HANNAH BLEAU24 Mar 2021357

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) likened basic election integrity measures embraced by several states, such as voter ID, to the era of Jim Crow and accused the GOP of attempting to suppress voters. He made the remarks during Wednesday’s Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing on S 1, or the “For the People Act,” which critics warn will strip power from the states and federalize U.S. elections.

Speaking to his colleagues during the hearing, Schumer blasted Republican state legislatures, such as Georgia’s, for pursuing basic election integrity measures, calling it “infuriating” and accusing Republicans of being “afraid” of democracy and trying to prevent people from voting.

“Some of these voter suppression laws in Georgia and other Republican states smack of Jim Crow rearing its ugly head once again. It is 160 years since the 13, 14, and 15th amendments abolished slavery, and Jim Crow stills seems to be with us,” the New York progressive said.

“The laws, their various cousins in Republican state legislatures across the country, are one of the greatest threats we have to modern democracy in America,” Schumer declared before citing the Washington Post:

According to the Washington Post, these laws could strain every available method of voting for tens of millions of Americans, the most sweeping contradiction of ballot access in the United States since the end of Reconstruction. If one political party believes that when you lose an election the answer isn’t to win more votes but rather to try and prevent the other side from voting, we have an existential threat to democracy on our hands. If we don’t stop these vicious and often racist actions, third-world autocracy … will be on its way. That is why the country so badly needs S 1, a bill that would combat all of these voter suppression efforts. A bill that would make it easier, not harder, to vote by automatically registering American voters when they get a driver’s license. By guaranteeing at least 15 continuous days of early voting. A bill that would limit dark money and corruption in our politics and much more.

Schumer said he expects to hear the “same tired canards from our Republican colleagues, many of which have no basis in fact, most of which defy belief.”

“We’re going to hear that it’s a federal takeover of our elections,” Schumer said, telling his colleagues that the founders “wrote in the constitution that the Congress has the power to pass laws to determine the time, place, and manner of federal elections.”

“We’ve been down this road before,” he said, contending that opponents of voting rights throughout history have always said “leave it to the states.”

“Just leave it to the states to discriminate against African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, younger Americans in college. It is shameful our Republican colleagues are proposing these ideas in 2020,” Schumer said.

“Shame, Shame, shame. This is not a usual political argument. This goes to the core of our democracy. The crowning achievement of the American Civil Rights movement was a federal election law,” he continued.

“It shouldn’t matter if a state wants to do it if it’s so, so wrong. If it’s so against the grain of our democracy. Voting rights are sacrosanct,” Schumer said, promising that S 1 “will be a priority in this Congress.”

A HEP and HEP Action survey released this week showed that a majority of registered voters, including a majority of black and Latino voters, support voter ID laws. The same survey found that a majority of voters oppose operatives and organizers harvesting ballots.

 

[marsh]

Survey: Majority of Registered Voters Oppose Vote Trafficking

A majority of registered voters, including 54 percent of low-income voters, oppose ballot harvesting via political operatives and paid organizers.

www.breitbart.com

Survey: Majority of Voters, Including 54% Low Income Voters, Oppose Operatives, Organizers Harvesting Ballots
18

JEFF KOWALSKY/AFP via Getty Images
HANNAH BLEAU24 Mar 202115

A majority of registered voters, including 54 percent of low-income voters, oppose ballot harvesting via political operatives and paid organizers, a HEP and HEP Action memo revealed.

The Senate Rules Committee is holding a hearing on Wednesday on the House-passed “For the People Act,” which GOP critics say would essentially federalize U.S. elections by stripping states’ power to implement their own election integrity measures, such as voter ID.

Additionally, the act would essentially give the greenlight for ballot harvesting, requiring states to “permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots.”

States “may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return.”

Jason Snead, Executive Director of the Honest Elections Project, sent a memo to members of Congress and state legislators, showing the mass support for basic election integrity measures.

That includes bans on ballot harvesting.

“Americans do not want political operatives harvesting and trafficking ballots,” the survey found, noting 11 percent of voters believe “vote trafficking should be legal.” The vast majority, or 62 percent, believe it should be “illegal for political operatives and paid organizers to have direct access to absentee voters as they vote, and then take unsupervised possession of their ballots.” Fifty-four percent of low-income voters hold the same sentiment:

H.R. 1 nevertheless forces every community in the nation to allow it. Progressives often tout vote trafficking as helping poor and minority voters, yet 54% of low-income voters and 66% of Hispanic voters think the practice should be illegal. Vote trafficking has been used to intimidate and disenfranchise voters, and several states have banned it. H.R. 1 expressly overrules these sensible and popular laws.

The finding is significant, as Democrats typically categorize basic election integrity measures, including bans on ballot harvesting, as discriminatory to disadvantaged Americans. But, according to the survey, registered voters across the board do not endorse the practice.

The survey, taken March 4-10 among 1,200 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/- 2.83 percent.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

H.R.1 – Is It Really "For The People"?

TUESDAY, MAR 23, 2021 - 10:45 PM
Authored by Chris Farrell via The Gatestone Institute,

A lot has been written about H.R.1 -- the so-called "For the People Act of 2021." Former Vice President Mike Pence has opined on the bill. The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal sounded the alarm back in January. The editors of National Review come right out and call it a "partisan assault on American democracy."


H.R.1 purports to, "expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes." The Bill is 791 pages long.

Here are just a few of the more egregious federal power grabs in H.R.1 concocted against the 50 states that run elections under the U.S. Constitution:

1. Ban voter ID laws and allow ballot harvesting;
2. Expand Election Day to "election season" by mandating mail-in ballots be counted 10 days after the election would normally be over;
3. Automatic voter registration of people who apply for unemployment, Medicaid, Obamacare and college, or who are coming out of prison.

There is a lot more, and it gets worse. Substantially worse. There are First Amendment restrictions on political speech and on the support or opposition of a bill and/or a candidate. Remember: This is supposed to be "fortifying our democracy."

If you are interested in a "through the looking glass" annotated analysis of H.R.1 -- then head over to the Brennan Center for Justice. They are happy to explain how those pesky constitutional rights can be whittled down to something more "fair" for everyone. For example, the Brennan Center analysis confidently assures readers about how H.R.1 "affirms Congress' power to protect the right to vote, regulate federal elections, and defend the democratic process in the United States." It seeks to airbrush Article I, Section 4 -- The Elections Clause -- from history and practice. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the "Times, Places, and Manner" of congressional elections. H.R.1 would federally strangle the Elections Clause.

In order to find our way out, it is helpful to know how we got into this terrible predicament. The foundation for the madness of H.R.1 is legal positivism, a thesis, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which states "that the existence and content of law depends on social facts and not on its merits."

H.R.1 is nearly 800 pages of meritless, militant, social engineering targeting the foundations of the U.S. Constitution, voting rights and political free speech -- all dressed-up as being "for the people."

Authoritarians -- socialists and communists of different stripes, geography and eras -- like to use legal positivism because it allows enormous latitude to design, implement and (especially) enforce whatever they dream up as the way things ought to be. What better way to design a worker's paradise? Or -- hypothetically, of course -- to make sure that a stolen election stays stolen, is never audited, and lays the groundwork for reproducible results for the next century?

It's neat and easy under legal positivism. Draft up a one-sided, detailed plan (loaded with outrageous schemes) of nearly 800 pages that NO ONE will read or understand. Ram it through the one-party legislature and have the same party's president sign it into law. Presto! -- cheating has become nice and "legal."

For readers who find this technique troubling, or wonder why it does not sound like the great tradition of debate and compromise described in our founding documents and political history, there is good reason. The United States was founded on a theory of Natural Law, which adheres to universal moral principles for ethical and legal norms of human conduct whether a particular government recognizes them or not -- that is, essentially, the antithesis of legal positivism.

There are now generations of Americans who have never been exposed to these ideas.

The "mind wipe" of Americans for all that is authentic and real about the foundation of our country as a constitutional republic began through the education system. We allowed people like Howard Zinn to dictate the historical framework for understanding who and what we are as Americans for millions of high schoolers and undergraduates. An intellectual diet of relativism, critical theory, deconstruction and subjectivity. That delegation of our educational standards was reckless, lazy and stupid. When you do not know any better, how can you act any better?

The co-opting and hollowing out of our education system is the main explanation for why and how we are wrestling with the loss of the Republic by legislative militancy, topped off with the Executive pen stroke.

This is terribly serious stuff and no one is telling you WHY you are losing. There is a lot of hand-wringing and outrage, and rightly so. But that nagging feeling tormenting you about why America seems to be slipping away -- and why everything you believed in is now being turned into a crime or a shaming social media joke -- well, no one is explaining that to you. Until now.

Now is the time to snap out of our Covid-induced somnolence and passivity. If President Joe Biden's election "victory" wasn't enough to get your attention -- then H.R.1 must be. Please let everyone influential know, clearly and politely, exactly what you think.

 

[marsh]

Watch Live — Senate holds hearing on HR 1…

Visit the post for more.

citizenfreepress.com

View: https://youtu.be/I4QZV_q2JQE
42:25 min
Senate holds hearing on HR 1…
Posted by Kane on March 24, 2021 9:22 am

 

[marsh]

Newly Revealed Capitol Rioters' Messages Deal Blow to Media's Violent Siege Narrative

The shadow of the January 6th riots at the U.S. Capitol building has been hovering over the nation for months. Although the FBI is pursuing criminal offenders who breached the capitol to bring every last one of them to justice, as if they were violent domestic terrorists planning to overthrow...

beckernews.com

Newly Revealed Capitol Rioters’ Messages Deal Blow to Media’s Violent Siege Narrative

March 24, 2021
by Kyle Becker

Written by Kyle Becker

The shadow of the January 6th riots at the U.S. Capitol building has been hovering over the nation for months.

Although the FBI is pursuing criminal offenders who breached the capitol to bring every last one of them to justice, as if they were violent domestic terrorists planning to overthrow the government, newly revealed messages undercut this version of events. Instead, it shows that Capitol riot planners were wrongfully expecting President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act to maintain power and were preparing for clashes with Antifa activists.

The news came out in court evidence that was released on Tuesday.

“Kelly Meggs, the Florida leader of the Oath Keepers — who’s been charged along with nine others with conspiring to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election — said in private messages obtained by prosecutors that he’d been in touch repeatedly with Proud Boys leadership in particular. He said he had worked out a strategy to confront potential violence from antifa, a loosely organized collection of left-wing extremists,” Politico reported.

“This week I organized an alliance between Oath Keepers, Florida 3%ers, and Proud Boys,” Meggs wrote on Facebook on December 19 . “We have decided to work together and shut this shit down.”

“We’re going to march with them for awhile then fall to the back of the crowd and turn off,” Meggs continued. “Then we will have the Proud Boys get in front of them the cops will get between antifa and Proud Boys. We will come in behind antifa and beat the hell out of them.”

The issue is that the Antifa contingency that the far-right groups expected to encounter was not readily identifiable. The militaristic gear, which included no known firearms by any of the defendants, was thus arguably in preparation for a riot with expected Antifa and Black Bloc counter-protesters.

The Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and 3%ers nonetheless participated in the Capitol breach. It is important to note that none of the Capitol rioters are known to have been armed.

“[W]e stormed and got inside,” Meggs wrote in a Signal chat. “Ok who gives a damn who went in there…. We are now the enemy of the State.” Meggs would write again in the same chat: “We aren’t quitting!! We are reloading!!”

On February 17, Meggs was arrested on a criminal complaint charging him with conspiracy, destruction of government property, obstruction of an official proceeding, and entering a restricted building without lawful authority.

But there are multiple signs that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Capitol rioters is in danger of serious overreach. In January, it was argued by U.S. attorneys that there were “capture and kill” teams at the Capitol riots who intended to target Congressmembers.

“U.S. prosecutors in Arizona said Thursday in a court filing against Jacob Chansley, also known as the ‘QAnon Shaman,’ that they have ‘strong evidence’ members of the pro-Trump mob wanted to ‘capture and assassinate’ officials,” NPR reported.

But Michael Sherwin, acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, later admitted that “investigators have not uncovered direct evidence at this point of any ‘kill/capture teams’ targeting elected officials during the U.S. Capitol insurrection, contradicting allegations made earlier by federal prosecutors in Arizona,” the report noted.

Sherwin more recently appeared on ’60 Minutes’ and made several bombastic claims that may have further damaged the DOJ’s case.

“Michael Sherwin, who until recently was the leader of the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 investigation and the acting U.S. attorney for Washington D.C., told CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ on Sunday that he believes evidence would support a charge of ‘seditious conspiracy’ against some of the rioters,” Politico reported, “a rarely used charge meant to signal an intent to overthrow the government. And anonymous DOJ officials told The New York Times that they believed such a charge would likely be aimed at the Oath Keepers.”

“The reports led a top federal judge to admonish the Justice Department and threaten sanctions Tuesday for comments he said could taint the jury pool and undermine the case against the 10 Oath Keepers,” Politico noted.

“These defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not one that is conducted in the media,” District Court Judge Amit Mehta said in a conference on Tuesday, which included senior supervisors in the U.S. Attorney’s office. “I will not tolerate continued publicity in the media.”

“These kinds of statements in the media have the potential of affecting the jury pool … I intend to enforce that rule vigorously,” said Mehta, who was appointed by former President Obama.

“The government, quite frankly, should know better.”

Another thing the government should “know better” about is whether or not Donald Trump himself could be criminally charged for the Capitol riots. Nonetheless, Sherwin again went out on a limb and enaged in irresponsible speculation about the legal matter.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1373782563609845763

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1373782563609845763
1:17 min

“It’s unequivocal that Trump was the magnet that brought the people to D.C. on the 6th,” replied Sherwin, making a spurious argument.

“So does that mean that Trump is “criminally culpable for everything that happened during the siege, during the breach?” Pelley asked.

“We have plenty of people– we have soccer moms from Ohio that were arrested saying, ‘Well, I did this because my president said I had to take back our house.’ That moves the needle towards that direction,” Sherwin argued.

“Maybe the president is culpable for those actions,” the prosecutor insinuated. “But also, you see in the public record too, militia members saying, ‘You know what? We did this because Trump just talks a big game. He’s just all talk. We did what he wouldn’t do.’”

“In short, you have investigators looking into the president’s role?” asked Pelley.

“We have people looking at everything, correct,” Sherwin replied. “Everything’s being looked at.”

What hasn’t been “looked at” is the actual role that Antifa played in the Capitol riots. There were pro-Antifa activists there in unknown numbers, such as John Sullivan, who videographed the shooting of Ashli Babbitt.

Additionally, expert eyewitnesses have attested to having spotted agents provocateurs amond the Capitol rioters, such as J. Michael Waller, the Senior Analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy, was in attendance at the January 6th uprising.

“The deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol bore the markings of an organized operation planned well in advance of the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, Waller wrote. “A small number of cadre appeared to use the cover of a huge rally to stage its attack. Before it began, I saw from my vantage point on the West Front of the Capitol what appeared to be four separate cells or units”:

• 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.

“All of these cells or groups stood out from the very large crowd by their behavior and overall demeanor. However, they did not all appear at the same time. Not until the very end did it appear there was a prearranged plan to storm the Capitol building, and to manipulate the unsuspecting crowd as cover and as a follow-on force,” he added in his first-person account.

Michael Yon, the nation’s most experienced war correspondent, also gave a detailed, persuasive account of the Antifa “agents provocateurs” he said were in the January 6th crowd. His interview with the Epoch Times can be watched below:

View: https://youtu.be/4bIeKj7fZ8U
19:34 min

Yon relates his experience covering over a hundred protests in Hong Kong, and his knowledge that Antifa trained by watching the protesters there, and brings that to bear in his own eyewitness account of the January 6th riots.

“It was Antifa written all over this,” Yon concluded.

No one sensible is arguing that Antifa or other left-wing activist groups are singularly responsible for the Capitol riots, but the situation during the riot is much more complex than the tendentious narrative in the mainstream media portrays. The newly released communications suggests that the far-right extremists who showed up at the January 6th session of Congress intended to do combat with the usual suspects on the radical left, and not with their own country.

The federal prosecutors in the Capitol rioters’ cases, by all appearances, may be guilty of engaging in politically driven overcharging of defendants; meanwhile, radical activists continue to rampage across America’s cities with little-to-no concern from the Justice Department. If there were an equal standard of justice in America, there would be less cause for concern. But when the case is largely being tried in the media by prosecutors themselves, then the American people are right to question their motives.

 

[marsh]

Breaking: National Guard Commanding General Blows Gigantic Hole in Dem Narrative, Reveals 'Unusual' Directive Before Capitol Riots

The commanding general of the D.C. National Guard blew a gigantic hole in the narrative that the Capitol building security was merely ‘unprepared’ for the riots of January 6th. The security was inadequate because the Commander of the National Guard was told not to authorize additional troops...

beckernews.com

National Guard Commanding General Reveals ‘Unusual’ Directive Before Capitol Riots

March 3, 2021
by Kyle Becker

Written by Kyle Becker

The commanding general of the D.C. National Guard blew a gigantic hole in the narrative that the Capitol building security was merely ‘unprepared’ for the riots of January 6th.

The security was inadequate because the Commander of the National Guard was told not to authorize additional troops, including a “quick reaction” team, without the express approval of a civil authority. That would include Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Sergeant at Arms.

The explosive testimony of Maj. Gen. William J. Walker came at a Congressional hearing to determine the origins of the Capitol building attack. Senator Rob Portman’s interrogation of Walker gives Americans a precise rundown of what happened. Watch the testimony above.

“This morning you have testified that you received this letter from former Secretary [of the Army, Ryan D.] McCarthy on January 5th,” Senator Portman said. “So, the day before the attack on the Capitol. In that letter, did Secretary McCarthy prohibit you from deploying the National Guard’s quick reaction force without his authorization?”

“So, I have the letter in front of me,” General Walker replied. “And his letter does not. But it is the Secretary of Defense [Christopher C. Miller] says that I have to ‘use it as a last resort.’ But the Secretary of the Army told me, and it’s – I have the letter – that I could not use the quick reaction force. It would… I will just read it.”

“I withhold authority to approve deployment of the District of Columbia National Guard quick reaction force and will do so only as a last resort in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority,” General Walker read from the Secretary of the Army’s letter.

“I will require a concept of operation prior to authorizing the deployment of… a quick reaction force,” General Walker added. “Now, a quick reaction force is normally a commander’s tool to go help. Either a civilian agency, but more typically to help the National Guardsmen who are out there in need, need of assistance.”

Thus, the “quick reaction” force was deliberately kept from acting quickly to address a developing emergency at the Capitol grounds.

The Washington Post reported on the development:

Maj. Gen. William J. Walker said he didn’t receive approval to change the D.C. Guard’s mission and send his forces to the Capitol on Jan. 6 until three hours and 19 minutes after he first received an emotional call from the Capitol Police chief requesting urgent backup.

Walker described the Pentagon’s restrictions as “unusual,” noting that he didn’t have such limitations last June when the D.C. Guard was tasked with responding to local racial justice protests.

In addition, we know from a letter from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller to the Secretary of the Army on January 4th that there was a directive that severely hamstrung National Guard response.

“Without my subsequent, personal authorization, the DCNG is not authorized the following:

• To be issued weapons, ammunition, bayonets, batons, or ballistic protection equipment such as helmets, and body armor.
• To interact physically with protestors, except when necessary in self-defense or defense of others, consistent with the DCNG Rules for the Use of Force.
• To employ any riot control agents.
• To share equipment with law enforcement agencies.
• To use Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets or to conduct ISR or Incident, Awareness, and Assessment activities.
• To employ helicopters or any other air assets.
• To conduct searches, seizures, arrests, or other similar direct law enforcement activity.
• To seek support from any non-DCNG National Guard units. […]

“You may employ the DCNG Quick Reaction Force (QRF) only as a last resort and in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority,” Miller added.

It is important to note that this directive corresponds to the testimony of General Walker about about a letter from the Secretary of the Army from January 5th.

In addition, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser also made it clear that law enforcement were to “stand down.”

“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,” Bowser wrote in a letter to acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.

The events of January 6th, as recounted from the House Sergeant at Arms, indicates the Speaker Pelosi was asked to authorize National Guard troops after the riot was already in progress.

The New York Times previously reported that the Speaker’s office confirmed that the National Guard was approved around 1:43 pm. Sund said he sent a request for help from the National Guard to Irving around 1:09 p.m, according to CNN. Irving said he was contacted about the matter after 2:00 pm, Axios reported. Sources questioned how Irving got the request after 2 pm but Pelosi approved the request at 1:43 pm.

Those troops would not arrive until nearly 5 p.m. By the time, it was much too late.
Speaker Pelosi being involved in Capitol security is not unprecedented. In June 2020, Speaker Pelosi had raised concerns with former president Donald Trump in June about the “militarization” of the Capitol. As reported by CBS News:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to President Trump on Thursday raising concerns about what she called the “militarization” of Washington, D.C., where thousands of National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officers have descended to quell protests over police brutality and the death of George Floyd.

“It is alarming that here in our nation’s capital, the thousands who have turned out peacefully have been confronted with the deployment of various security officers from multiple jurisdictions, including unidentified federal law enforcement personnel,” Pelosi said in her letter. The California Democrat raised concerns about soldiers stationed on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and Bureau of Prisons officers posted in Lafayette Square, in addition to National Guard troops and FBI officials.

“We are concerned about the increased militarization and lack of clarity that may increase chaos. I am writing to request a full list of the agencies involved and clarifications of the roles and responsibilities of the troops and federal law enforcement resources operating in the city,” Pelosi said. “Congress and the American people need to know who is in charge, what is the chain of command, what is the mission, and by what authority is the National Guard from other states operating in the capital.”

More things the American people need to know: Why Speaker Pelosi was warned about the threat of a Capitol riot and why she was not only late to authorize additional National Guard troops, but why the Commanding General was deliberately kept from deploying a “quick reaction” force to react to any potential emergency.

 

[marsh]

'Shock and Awe': Feds Admit They are Prosecuting Jan. 6 Capitol Protesters to Create Chilling Effect on 1st Amendment - Big League Politics

This entire situation is a hoax.

bigleaguepolitics.com

‘Shock and Awe’: Feds Admit They are Prosecuting Jan. 6 Capitol Protesters to Create Chilling Effect on 1st Amendment

Shane Trejo
Mar 23, 2021

Federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin appeared on CBS News’ 60 Minutes on Sunday where he admitted that he charged as many people as quickly as possible regardless of the evidence to put a chilling effect on the 1st Amendment rights of Trump supporters.

“After the 6th, we had an inauguration on the 20th. So I wanted to ensure, and our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe that we could charge as many people as possible before the 20th,” Sherwin told CBS News.

He added: “And it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re like, “If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.”’

Sherwin made it clear that the feds went after people who had gone viral regardless of whether they perpetrated any violence or committed any actual crime.

“So the first people we went after, I’m gonna call the internet stars, right? The low-hanging fruit. The ‘zip-tie guy,’ the ‘rebel flag guy,’ the ‘Camp Auschwitz guy.’ We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did,” Sherwin said.

A clip from that interview can be seen here:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1373780835732688896

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1373780835732688896
1:02 min

Big League Politics has reported on how the government is using the events of Jan. 6 as an excuse to crackdown on civil liberties and lock down the Capitol permanently with military personnel:

“A civilian association of National Guard service members is calling for the US Capitol deployment to end, months after the January presidential inauguration and the raucous protest at the Capitol over certification of the 2020 election. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin extended the Capitol deployment this week, overruling the Chief of the National Guard, who had determined that the presence of military forces at the Capitol was no longer necessary.

Guardsmen have been stationed at the Capitol under the grounds of alleged threats from domestic terrorists, with supporters of the deployment pointing to “Q” conspiracy theorists and other unnamed groups as imminent threats to Congress and the Capitol.

In a statement released Saturday, the chairman and the President of the National Guard Association(active and retired Guard generals, respectively), called for the government to end the Capitol deployment, handing off duties of securing the Capitol to Capitol police.

“National Guard soldiers and airmen here in Washington need to return home to their families, civilian employers and regular military obligations. They have completed their mission. They have made us all proud.

It’s time for local law enforcement to take it from here.“’

The Biden regime is ignoring foreign terrorists and illegals at the border while focusing their resources on persecuting Trump-supporting patriots. This is a sad state of affairs for the former land of the free.

 

[marsh]

WashPost lies about Sidney Powell, her Voter Fraud Court Claims | The Gateway Pundit | by Benjamin Wetmore

Cross-posted from TGP FactCheck Washington Post’s Aaron Blake completely misrepresents Sidney Powell’s court filings, turning them into a false confession that she never believed her claims of voter fraud In fact, Powell’s filing is quite clear that she does believe her claims about voter fraud...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

WashPost lies about Sidney Powell, her Voter Fraud Court Claims

By Ben Wetmore
Published March 24, 2021 at 1:06pm

Aaron Blake is a grad of the University of Minnesota. It shows up in his reporting and writing, which is cold, bland, and wrong.

Cross-posted from TGP FactCheck

• Washington Post’s Aaron Blake completely misrepresents Sidney Powell’s court filings, turning them into a false confession that she never believed her claims of voter fraud
• In fact, Powell’s filing is quite clear that she does believe her claims about voter fraud, and publicly posted the evidence she used to make her determination
• Blake lies to his readers and is committing serious journalistic malpractice to suit a left-wing narrative

OUR RATING: Journalistic Malpractice. Even Salon.com is ashamed.

Indicted Outlet: Aaron Blake | Washington Post | Link | Archive

The 2020 election was defined by accusations of voter fraud, and yet the media immediately after the election and subsequently, have sought to delegitimize any accusation of fraud. Even as hundreds came forward to offer eyewitness statements about fraud, still the official media narrative was that there was no such thing and, even if there was a little, there was never enough to make a difference. Lawyers who sought to prove the fraud in court, including Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, among others, were subject to official ridicule by the media.

The main antagonist of most voter fraud accusations, Dominion Voting Systems, has filed billion-dollar defamation lawsuits against several of the lawyers and figures who argued to consider the evidence of voter fraud in court.

Aaron Blake at the Washington Post is continuing this narrative by misquoting and lying about the supposed admissions of her attorneys in filing a Motion to Dismiss in federal court. If you actually read the Motion as filed, however, it is clear that Blake’s characterization of the Powell filing is a major misrepresentation and false.

Major Violations:

• Journalistic malpractice
• Lying
• Misrepresentation
• Lying headline

Sidney Powell was a well-known federal criminal defense attorney who published the book “License to Lie” about the systemic problems at the Department of Justice and among federal prosecutors. She took over the Mike Flynn prosecution and quickly turned a losing criminal case involving a false guilty plea, into an almost total exoneration for Flynn. During the election, when Powell claimed that she had seen evidence of systemic fraud, and specifically fingered Dominion Voting Systems as the culprit, it gave supporters of former President Donald Trump enthusiasm that the fraud they believed occurred would be addressed.

Yet repeated tribunals and authorities refused to act on the evidence, statements and allegations. Canvassing boards certified the results as untainted by fraud, legislatures certified the results even though many within the state were complaining and lawsuits were pending, and many courts threw out suits for reasons of legal technicalities like standing, or because the judge found the accusations lacking credibility when considering the word of the government officials who were claiming the results were free of fraud.

Dominion’s suit is in federal court and subject to a “motion to dismiss” by the defendant Sidney Powell. Powell has filed that motion and has posted it online. [1]

Here is how Aaron Blake at the Washington Post characterizes the filing:

Blake in the headline:

Sidney Powell’s Tucker Carlson-esque defense: ‘Reasonable people’ wouldn’t take her wild voter-fraud claims as fact

Blake in the second paragraph:

Her legal team claims that “reasonable people” would not take her claims about widespread election fraud as fact.

Blake in the fifth paragraph:

So there you have it: One of the chief architects of former president Donald Trump’s baseless effort to overturn the 2020 election admits that maybe, actually it was just that baseless and she was just saying stuff.

Here’s the basic characterization of Powell: she was so cynical that she’s finally admitting in federal court that she just made it all up. Her defense, according to Blake, is predicated on admitting to the court that she never believed any of it anyway!

This is the way radical left journalists try and explain intelligent and educated conservatives: by alleging that they are cynical, grifting, hucksters. This is the narrative frame that Blake uses on Powell, as a way of explaining why someone like her would have pushed accusations of voter fraud: she was just in it for the money!

The problem is that the Powell filing makes very clear that Powell does believe the things she said, and made an argument about how her statements characterizing the evidence of voter fraud should be understood by the court. Her argument is essentially thus: Powell made characterizations of the evidence, and she provided the evidence she made those conclusions upon. Dominion is complaining about the characterizations and not the evidence. And since the characterizations are political assessments, it doesn’t matter whether the facts are true or not, they are protected under the first amendment.

This is a classic “in the alternative” argument made to show that even if a Plaintiff’s claims are accurate, they are not legally actionable. [2] It does not mean that the defense, in this case Powell and her legal team, believe that her claims are baseless, it means that they do not think the Plaintiff can prevail as a matter of law. When litigants file a lawsuit, they have to prove both factual matters and matters of law that might apply in the situation.

So if Sidney Powell were to say “Democrats used Dominion to steal the election!” if they wanted to prove defamation they would have to prove a factual issue whether or not she said the alleged statement, whether the statement is true or false, as well as a legal issue of whether or not the statement is legally defamatory, and whether it was said knowing it was false or with ‘reckless disregard’ for the truth of the matter.

Let’s use this in a way that might make more sense to Blake: if I were to say “Blake is a bad reporter” and Blake sued me, the law would ask whether that’s even possible to be a yes/no answer. And it’s more a matter of taste, because clearly a lot of people like bad reporting as evidenced by the Washington Post’s continued success. So that suit would fail as a matter of law because the underlying claims, whether true or false, are not capable of being reduced to a yes or a no. If I were to say “Blake lied about Sidney Powell’s court filings” and Blake sued me, I would have to prove as a factual matter whether or not that’s true, which I think this article pretty well does. The first claim is void as a matter of law, because it’s not capable of being a yes/no answer. The second claim is more arguable as a factual matter, but since it’s true, it means that Blake has no recourse other than to start telling the truth about Powell.

To succeed in the case against Powell, Plaintiff Dominion must show that Defendant Powell’s statements were “false and made with reckless disregard for the truth” at the time they were made. Thus there are factual and legal matters in play. Powell’s attorneys are therefore critically saying she does believe in them, and whether they are true or false in the end, she believed they were true at the time they were made because she also publicly posted the evidence for her claims.

This is not a complicated legal matter and as it relates to so much of what is sometimes called “Media Law” there is no reasonable way Blake and the Washington Post are not familiar with these concepts. They are labeling Powell dishonest and disingenuous when Powell is being consistent and truthful, and the media’s dishonesty has been extreme.

The filing is very clear that Powell believes her voter fraud claims, here are relevant excerpts from page 51 of the document, styled as page 37:

The Complaint comes nowhere close to meeting this daunting standard. It alleges no facts which, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, would show that Sidney Powell knew her statements were false (assuming that they were indeed false, which Defendants dispute). Nor have Plaintiffs alleged any facts showing that Powell “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of h[er] publication.” In fact, she believed the allegations then and she believes them now. [1, page 51, emphasis added]

There’s really no defending the Washington Post on this point, either through sloppiness or bias, they have fundamentally misrepresented the position of Sidney Powell in this filing and lied about her position. They have quoted her as making essentially a false confession of defrauding Americans about claims of voter fraud. This is lying by Aaron Blake, it is misrepresentation, it is a lying headline, and all of these things are journalistic malpractice.
Blake is absolutely sure there was no conspiracy to commit voter fraud, even though there are hundreds of witnesses, thousands of pages of evidence, and a variety of analyses that suggest statistically impossible voting patterns, but there was, and is, an ongoing conspiracy to promote claims of voter fraud.

This is the ‘conservative conspiracy: bad, liberal conspiracy: good‘ line of thinking popular in the media. Here’s Blake’s dissembling on this point:

Of course the plaintiffs would call the claims ridiculous, but that doesn’t mean lots and lots of Americans didn’t internalize and believe them. There is lots of evidence that they did. And in fact, the claims fueled so much mistrust that people literally stormed the Capitol based upon them, and GOP legislators across the country are now using that mistrust to pass voting restrictions, despite there being no actual evidence of widespread fraud.

Another way of describing the mindset Blake describes would be to say: “we only accept unproven claims of widespread conspiracy at the Washington Post when they involve Republicans as the bad guy.” Otherwise we shout “no actual evidence” as loudly as possible so that we can’t hear the actual evidence we refuse to consider.

It’s not enough that the Aaron Blakes of the world refused to do any investigation into Dominion or claims about voter fraud, now they have to lie about the statements being made by the people who made those claims in order to label them hypocrites and grifters. The level of media dishonesty on display here is pretty stunning, even for the Washington Post which regularly debases itself like this.

There’s another issue going on, where the media tries to show inconsistency in statements by parsing apart legal filings and documents and comparing them to the prior public statements of people they dislike. This happened during the voter fraud hearings, when Democrats would typically say that voter fraud witnesses, such as Jessy Jacob in Detroit, and Dominion Whistleblower Mellissa Carone, were saying things before a legislative committee that were not under oath so as to avoid a perjury charge. This claim, however, was brazenly at odds with the fact that most witnesses had previously sworn out affidavits saying the exact same thing they testified to, and their statements were completely consistent and coherent over time. Here, the media is waiting to pounce on Powell for perceived hypocrisy by misunderstanding and misquoting a legal filing.

Outlets that dishonestly reported the original source material should perhaps not be trusted to accurately parse words and split hairs later when it involves their perceived political foes. The obvious inconsistencies of the City of Detroit as it related to voter fraud, or by Dominion’s CEO, seem to go unnoticed and unremarked by our elite chattering class.

By setting this article in place, as well, the media amplifies these false claims by letting a variety of low-rent operations regurgitate the lie for their smaller readership. Here is perennially-bankrupt Newsweek barfing out this claim about Powell. [3] There is a certain group consensus that the media forms, making it difficult for the truth to escape the original narrative frame.

You can even see the Daily Caller repeat the same story, by cobbling together the same quotes and story structure, adding only a tweet from NeverTrumper Erick Erickson. [4] The mainstream media usually labels the Daily Caller a ‘conservative’ or ‘right wing’ outlet, and yet, here, they are uncritically repeating and amplifying the garbage journalism from the Washington Post.

Even international media repeats these lies, here’s a Netherlands media outlet reporting that Powell admitted making things up in her court filing. [5]

Powell’s first argument in the Motion to Dismiss is contesting whether the court has jurisdiction. Considering the quality of the Washington Post’s reporting and legal understanding, it would mirror their understanding of the rest of the brief to sneer and snidely claim they were claiming Washington D.C. does not exist or that Powell doesn’t understand geography because she thinks that D.C. courts don’t have power.

We have emailed Aaron Blake to ask for a response, comment or quote. If he provides any, we will update the fact check accordingly.

There’s no defending Blake’s work here though, and the consequences for getting a story like this wrong is so severe and so cheapening to political discourse, that it earns special notice for dishonesty.

OUR RATING: Journalistic Malpractice. Even Salon.com is ashamed.

Bibliography:
1 ] https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...g-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf
2 ] Argument in the alternative
3 ] Sidney Powell's "no reasonable person" election lawsuit admission divides QAnon believers

4 ] Sidney Powell Says ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Conclude Her Voter Fraud Claims Were Statements Of Fact
5 ] Ex-advocaat Trump geeft toe dat fraudeclaim over stemmachines onzin was

 

[marsh]

You Just Can't Make This Up: Democrats Argue Removing Dead People from Voter Rolls Is "Voter Suppression" (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

It’s a reliable voting block.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

You Just Can’t Make This Up: Democrats Argue Removing Dead People from Voter Rolls Is “Voter Suppression” (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published March 24, 2021 at 1:55pm

It’s a reliable voting block.

On Tuesday Democrats held a hearing on the election transformation bill HR1 that will ensure the party that cheats will never lose another election.

Democrats LOVE this package of criminal behavior that makes it possible for anyone to in the United States or vote a hundred times.

According to PJ Media the bill is full of all sorts of wild federal mandates – bans on voter ID laws, prohibitions on cleaning voter rolls, requirements to accept late mail ballots and over 700 more pages of other commands that will lead to election chaos like we had in 2020.

During the hearing on Wednesday one of the Democrat witnesses argued that removing dead people from the voter rolls is “voter suppression.”

He actually said this! The dead people may actually feel suppressed of their right to vote!

View: https://youtu.be/tBj4MQSxVSs
10:29 min

 

[marsh]

CONFIRMED: Democrat Operative Was Given Secret Internet Connection to Network Where Ballots Were Counted | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

This is big.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

CONFIRMED: Democrat Operative Was Given Secret Internet Connection to Network Where Ballots Were Counted

By Jim Hoft
Published March 24, 2021 at 4:39pm

This is big.

Emails show that Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, Wisconsin state lead for the National Vote at Home Institute, was given secret internet access at the hotel convention center where ballots were counted in Green Bay.

Wisconsin Spotlight is reporting on this Wisconsin scandal.

The Daily Signal reported:

A veteran Democratic operative intricately involved in Green Bay’s November election was given access to “hidden” identifiers for the internet network at the hotel convention center where ballots were counted, according to emails obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight.

Green Bay city officials insist the presidential election was “administered exclusively by city staff.” But the emails show that Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, Wisconsin state lead for the National Vote at Home Institute, had a troubling amount of contact with election administration Nov. 4.

“I’ll have my team create two separate SSID’s for you,” Trent Jameson, director of event technology at Green Bay’s Hyatt Regency and KI Convention Center, where the city’s Central Count was located on Election Day, wrote to Spitzer-Rubenstein.

SSID stands for Service Set Identifier. It’s an internet network’s name. Open up the list of Wi-Fi networks on your laptop or phone, and the list of SSIDs will pop up. Wireless router or access points broadcast SSIDs so nearby devices can find and display any available networks.

 

[marsh]

Green Bay Officials Turn Down Request to Testify on March 31 After they Gave Dem Operatives Access to Voting Room and Internet Network During Election -- They Say They're Busy | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich Earlier this month Wisconsin Spotlight reported that former top Democrat operative Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein was given keys to the KI Center ballroom in Green Bay, Wisconsin where absentee ballots were stored and counted for days prior to the 2020 election.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Green Bay Officials Turn Down Request to Testify on March 31 After they Gave Dem Operatives Access to Voting Room and Internet Network During Election — They Say They’re Busy

By Jim Hoft
Published March 24, 2021 at 5:51pm

Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich

Earlier this month Wisconsin Spotlight reported that former top Democrat operative Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein was given keys to the KI Center ballroom in Green Bay, Wisconsin where absentee ballots were stored and counted for days prior to the 2020 election.

Newly released emails by Wisconsin Spotlight confirmed this development in the battleground state of Wisconsin.

Then earlier today we reported–

Emails show that Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, Wisconsin state lead for the National Vote at Home Institute, was given secret internet access at the hotel convention center where ballots were counted in Green Bay.

Wisconsin Spotlight is reporting on this Wisconsin scandal.

But Mayor Genrich and City Attorney Vanessa Chavez refuse to testify before state lawmakers.
They say they are busy.

FOX 11 reported:

The Assembly committee members didn’t invite city officials to the first hearing on March 10th, but they did invite them to the one next week.

Mayor Eric Genrich and City Attorney Vanessa Chavez say a scheduling conflict will prevent them from attending.

Chavez sent FOX 11 a letter she sent to committee chair, State Rep. Janel Brandtjen (R-Menominee Falls):

Hello Rep. Brandtjen. Thank you for extending an invitation to testify at the March 31st hearing to the City. I would be the proper person to represent the City. Unfortunately, I have a scheduling conflict on that day, so the City will not be able to attend on March 31st. However, as you may know, the City of Green Bay Common Council has tasked me with drafting a report on the City’s activities with respect to the election, which I am happy to share once it is complete, which will likely be ahead of the March 31st meeting.

Finally, if you are hoping to have someone attend in person, I can certainly look at coordinating for a future date. Please let me know. Thanks.

Chavez says she has not heard back from Brandtjen.

They have prior commitments and can’t make it?
Unreal.

 

[marsh]

The Left’s Hoodwinking of America

townhall.com

The Left’s Hoodwinking of America

Ken Blackwell
|
Posted: Mar 23, 2021 12:01 AM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Source: AP Photo/Elaine Thompson
!
No greater hoodwinking of America has ever been proposed than through a dangerous and deceitful piece of current federal legislation that will create a one-party rule.

In March 1933, the German people voted in their last full and free election until West Germans voted in 1949. The 1933 elections gave power to the National Socialist Workers Party in coalition with a minor party subsequently outlawed along with every other German political party as the Nazis turned Germany into a one-party state.

The advent of one-party rule in World War II Germany was violent and complete. The path to one-party rule in America is subtle and only requires the American people to be duped by the American left.

The core of this devious plan is the cynically named “For the People Act” passed by the House along party lines and awaiting a vote in the Senate as S.B. 1. This bill is being falsely promoted by its supporters, and should be more accurately called, “For the Corrupt Politician Act.”

Our Constitution was designed to prevent a power grab by one political group. It maintains checks and balances between the people and their elected officials and also between state and federal governments. In Federalist Papers Number 10, founder James Madison noted “among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”

There has perhaps never been a piece of legislation with a greater promise for factionalism, tyranny, and loss of checks and balances than this Act. It would silence the political voices of roughly half of the country and lay the groundwork to steal the rest.

It breaks the foundational tenets of these United States by removing from our 50 states their constitutional authority over elections. It steals control of the individual vote from the individual voter. Its restrictions and regulations on speech will make opposition to one-party rule and election corruption nearly impossible to publicly express and subject people who speak out to criminal penalties.

The bill’s provisions were designed by power-hungry activists and their political colleagues to dilute the safety and security of every American ballot through a series of voting procedure changes hidden in deceitful titles like, “Preventing Voter Intimidation” or “Best Practices.”

Much analysis exists of dangerous individual provisions in the bill, but it is the broader public policy aspects of this legislation and its dissolution of our first freedoms that should strike fear in all Americans regardless of political affiliation.

S.B. 1/H.R. 1 transcends politics and politicians. Its impact goes beyond present-time elections and today’s officials. It is not hyperbole to note that if passed, this bill will be step one at the end of the United States as we know it and the rights and freedoms our Constitution protects.

It is only false propaganda and the contemptuous invention of a “common enemy” that allows popular acceptance of what would otherwise be vehemently opposed. Such was the case in Germany as the Nazi party blamed other political partisans and a religious minority for the country’s ills, uniting the nation under a false flag that ultimately caused devastation for every German citizen.

As liberalism moved further toward socialism in recent decades, its activist class diligently created the false notion that conservatives and constitutionalists are American’s enemies. Schools have ceased teaching about constitutional liberty and become propaganda mills. The false messaging permeates all levels of society.

The left calls the right of voters to protect ballots “voter suppression.” It implies that blacks and other minorities are too incompetent to obtain identification, even though ID is provided at low cost or no cost in most states. Liberals claim cleaning voter rolls or opposing unverifiable mail-only ballots is somehow “racist.”

As the left unceasingly touts a false nexus between vote security and racism, too many of our fellow citizens have bought into the propaganda. That opens the door to “fix” (non-existent) “racism” with this bill.

To be clear, the left’s real agenda is not racial justice or enforcing rights for any group they claim is mistreated. It is solely to manipulate good, decent Americans into voting against non-existent bad guys so they can achieve the one-sided political power that is their true end game and that of every totalitarian-oriented movement in history.

Living in Britain during the rise of Nazism, Austrian-born economist Friedrich von Hayek was a keen observer of the freedom-limiting force of government using its own power to tilt an unknowing public toward totalitarianism. He also knew it started with a benign projection of socialism.

In his 1944 book The Road to Serfdom, Hayek noted a “tendency among modern men to imagine themselves ethical because they have delegated their vices to larger groups. To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many moral restraints which control their behavior as individuals within the group.”

As renowned WWII reporter Edward R. Murrow observed, “a nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

 

[marsh]

VIDEO: Regent University Election Integrity Conference -- TGP's Jim and Joe Hoft Release Exclusive Content - Also: FULL CONFERENCE VIDEO | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Former US Representative and current Dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University held the first of its kind Election Integrity Conference at Regent University Tuesday, March 23rd, from noon to 7 PM.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

VIDEO: Regent University Election Integrity Conference — TGP’s Jim and Joe Hoft Release Exclusive Content – Also: FULL CONFERENCE VIDEO

By Jim Hoft
Published March 25, 2021 at 7:30am

Former US Representative and current Dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University held the first of its kind Election Integrity Conference at Regent University Tuesday, March 23rd, from noon to 7 PM.

The Gateway Pundit’s Jim and Joe presented at the online conference on Tuesday. We put together an hour-long presentation on the evidence of fraud, irregularities and what we believe was criminal activity in the 2020 election.

One America News ran the entire Election Integrity Conference on their channel.

In this segment from OAN Jim Hoft described the late night surprise delivery of ballots by Democrat officials to the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan.

Rumble video on website 7:56 min

The Detroit media and Politifact said this never happened. Then when we produced this shocking video they said this was completely acceptable. Of course, this was also a lie.

Joe Hoft discussed the numerous “glitches,” many that were caught on live TV on election night and NEVER explained. Every single glitch recorded on live television went against President Trump.

Rumble video on website 2:24 min

** You can watch the entire conference from start to finish and in segments at — Regent.edu/electionintegrity

The election integrity conference featured nationally-renowned speakers and panelists including:

• Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University
• Ben Carson, Former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
• Mark Steyn, New York Times best-selling author and Tucker Carlson guest host
• Eric Metaxas, New York Times best-selling author and radio host
• Kris Kobach, Former Secretary of State of Kansas
• Jay Ashcroft, Secretary of State of Missouri
• John Fund, Political Journalist for National Affairs Report for National Review Online and Senior Editor at The American Spectator
• Hans von Spakovsky, Attorney, Former Member of Federal Election Commission, Manager of the Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative, and a Senior Legal Fellow in Heritage’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
• Joe and Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit
• Mr. Russ Voght, Director of OMB under President Trump
• Additional Expert Panelists

The event and videos are free and open to the public.
This was an exceptional event.

Thanks to Dean Bachmann for hosting this very important conference for the American people.
###
Founded in 1978, Regent University is America’s premier Christian university with more than 11,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees in more than 135 areas of study including business, communication and the arts, counseling, cybersecurity, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare and psychology. Regent University, ranked among top national universities (U.S. News & World Report, 2020), is one of only 23 universities nationally to receive an “A” rating for its comprehensive liberal arts core curriculum.


Guys — We are excited to share our findings at this event. We published over 1,700 articles following the election and now we have an opportunity to showcase in public what we discovered! I hope you put this on your calendar!

page 2

 

[marsh]

The Corrupt and Political DOJ Is Over-Charging Oath Keepers and Patriots Like they did Targets in the Mueller Russia Hoax Investigation | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

Our DOJ and FBI could not be more corrupt. These government organizations no longer include people of honor. This is Obama-Biden’s America. We wrote for years about the Mueller sham – the attempted coup of President Trump from a gang of political hacks within the DOJ and FBI. It was frightening...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The Corrupt and Political DOJ Is Over-Charging Oath Keepers and Patriots Like they did Targets in the Mueller Russia Hoax Investigation

By Joe Hoft
Published March 25, 2021 at 7:45am

Our DOJ and FBI could not be more corrupt. These government organizations no longer include people of honor. This is Obama-Biden’s America.

We wrote for years about the Mueller sham – the attempted coup of President Trump from a gang of political hacks within the DOJ and FBI. It was frightening to admit that this was where our country had gone. But after eight years of the Obama Administration, it seemed like everything was significantly more corrupted.

We sat and watched as the DOJ held pressers announcing Russians had been indicted. That these Russians were associated with the President. But it was all a lie. We don’t even know if the Russians are real people and still don’t. It’s highly probable that they are not. The Russians were just political pawns used by the corrupt DOJ in its constant assault on President Trump.

The entire Russian conspiracy was just an Obama operation intended to harass and remove a great President from office – illegally using any means necessary.

Everything is political at the DOJ and America-loving, God-fearing, hard-working, free men and women are now the main enemy of this unlawful gang.

So as the election came and went and the world’s greatest fraud ever was perpetrated, the villains in the eyes of the DOJ were not the fraudsters, they were those Americans who knew the 2020 election was stolen.

People forget that many Americans on January 6th in Washington D.C. and around the country felt that VP Pence had a duty to have the election investigated and certainly would order that during the day with the opportunity he had to do so. But this was not the case – Pence was part of the plan.

Trump supporters were the target, like the Trump team in the Mueller witch hunt. Over the following months Antifa was ignored and pardoned by the FBI and DOJ and innocent Trump supporters became targets.

Trump supporters were accused of being armed, but there is no evidence of this, and more.

Crazy accusations were made by the DOJ. Multiple arrests were made, some of which as Reuters reported are now being reversed:

Prosecutors made some serious claims after the deadly U.S. Capitol attack, saying they had evidence rioters planned to kill elected officials, suggesting a Virginia man at the building received directives to gas lawmakers, and accusing another suspect of directing mayhem on Jan. 6 with encrypted messages.

But the Justice Department has since acknowledged in court hearings that some of its evidence concerning the riot – carried out by a mob of supporters of former President Donald Trump to try to overturn his election loss – is less damning than it initially indicated.

The department suffered another blow this week when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta threatened to impose a gag order on prosecutors after Michael Sherwin, its former head prosecutor on the Capitol cases, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” program that evidence pointed toward sedition charges against some defendants.

A charge of sedition – meaning incitement of a rebellion – has not been brought against any of the more than 400 people arrested to date. The most serious charges have been assault, conspiracy and obstruction of Congress or law enforcement.

Prosecutors are in the early stages of building criminal cases ahead of the trials stemming from an attack that left five people dead including a police officer, forced lawmakers to hide for their own safety and interrupted the formal congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.

But missteps by the government could harm its credibility as accused ringleaders begin asking courts to drop some of the most serious charges.

After the Mueller sham and by ignoring the massive fraud in the 2020 election and thousands of related fraudulent events, the DOJ has lost all credibility.

This is why the DOJ is going after peaceful Trump supporters, 1.1 million who attended Trump rallies this fall. It is all a political hit job.

Sundance at the Conservative Treehouse puts it this way:

The approach of building a political narrative through false accusations and over-charging in the DOJ is the essence of Lawfare. The government has endless taxpayer resources to fuel their political weaponization of the judiciary.

The process of the charges then becomes the punishment by design. The targets are drained financially, sometimes physically detained under false pretense, and then the DOJ walks backwards when the judges finally ask for proof.

This is what we face today. Thank you, Democrats. A stolen election, another circus of indictments based on lies, and a coordinated set up by the Deep State – just another day in the DC swamp.

 

[Tristan]

The stench from the rot is everywhere, yet we're supposed to deny it's existence.

 

[marsh]

Biden: GOP Election Integrity Efforts 'Un-American' and 'Sick': 'This Makes Jim Crow Look Like Jim Eagle'

Basic election integrity efforts led by GOP lawmakers in D.C. and state legislatures are "un-American" and "sick," making "Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle," President Biden said.

www.breitbart.com

Biden: GOP Election Integrity Efforts ‘Un-American’ and ‘Sick’: ‘This Makes Jim Crow Look Like Jim Eagle’

The White House / YouTube video on website 1:56 min

HANNAH BLEAU25 Mar 202197

Basic election integrity efforts led by GOP lawmakers in D.C. and state legislatures are “un-American” and “sick,” making “Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle,” President Joe Biden said during his first presidential press conference Thursday.

Biden echoed the rhetoric touted by progressives in the House and Senate, voicing urgent concerns over basic election integrity measures pursued by Republicans.

“What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick. Deciding in some states that you cannot bring water to people standing in line waiting to vote. Deciding that you’re going to end voting at 5 o’clock when working people are just getting off work. Deciding that there will no absentee ballots under the most rigid circumstances,” Biden said, concluding that it is “all designed.”

“And I’m going to spend my time doing three things,” he continued. “One, trying to figure out how to pass the legislation passed by the House, number one. Number two, educating the American public. The Republican voters I know find this despicable. … I’m not talking about the elected officials. I’m talking about voters. Voters.”

Biden said he is “convinced” that Democrats will be able to stop basic election integrity measures, which Democrats routinely describe as forms of “voter suppression,” adding that such proposals make “Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.”

“I mean, this is gigantic what they’re trying to do, and it cannot be sustained. I’ll do everything in my power, along with my friends in the House and the Senate, to keep that from becoming the law,” Biden said.

Biden did not list his third item of action despite previewing “three things” he plans to spend his time doing in regard to these efforts.

When asked if there is anything else he can do outside of passing legislation, he said yes but refused to lay out a strategy.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) dropped a similar line during Wednesday’s Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing on S. 1, or the “For the People Act,” which would strip states of their power to implement and enforce basic election integrity measures, such as voter ID, essentially federalizing U.S. elections.

“Some of these voter suppression laws in Georgia and other Republican states smack of Jim Crow rearing its ugly head once again,” Schumer said Wednesday. “It is 160 years since the 13, 14, and 15th amendments abolished slavery, and Jim Crow stills seems to be with us.”

“The laws, their various cousins in Republican state legislatures across the country, are one of the greatest threats we have to modern democracy in America,” the progressive New York lawmaker added.

Watch:
Senate Rules and Administration Committee

Video on website 10:46 min

 

[marsh]

Republicans see Dem drive to rig system, secure one-party rule, despite promises of bipartisanship

Democrats in Congress have D.C. statehood, federal election reform, immigration reform with a path to citizenship and more on their agenda.

justthenews.com

Republicans see Dem drive to rig system, secure one-party rule, despite promises of bipartisanship

Democrats in Congress have D.C. statehood, federal election reform, immigration reform with a path to citizenship and more on their agenda.
Image

Rep. Liz Cheney
Photo by Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

By Nicholas Ballasy
Updated: March 24, 2021 - 10:18pm

Republicans are describing the Democratic Party's agenda as an attempt to, in effect, lock in one-party rule in the U.S. government — a far cry from President Joe Biden's promises of a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington.

Democratic leaders in the 117th Congress have Washington D.C. statehood, federal election reform, Puerto Rican statehood, a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants and more on their agenda.

There has been a record surge of migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border after the Biden administration unilaterally, through executive orders, changed many border enforcement and immigration policies implemented under the Trump administration. Illegal border crossings are also on the rise. Shortly after he was inaugurated, Biden released his own immigration reform plan that would provide a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants living in the U.S.

“Democrats are doing whatever they can to force their socialist agenda on the American people," National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokesman Michael McAdams told Just the News. "They’re trying to overturn a state-certified congressional election in Iowa, they passed corrupt legislation that funnels $7.2 million in public money to their campaigns, and they’re trying to rewrite the Constitution to solidify their power."

McAdams was referring to H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which Democrats passed in the House and want to pass in the Senate. Under the legislation, Super PACs would be required to publicly disclose their donors, and the bill would "match small donations (up to $200) to participating congressional candidates at a 6-1 ratio."

The bill creates a nonpartisan redistricting commission, and it requires automatic voter registration with an opt-out provision for individuals. The legislation also makes Election Day a holiday for federal employees and prohibits states from placing any restrictions on a voter's ability to cast mail-in ballots. Prior to the pandemic, voters in many states needed to provide an excuse to obtain an absentee ballot.

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, chair of the House Republican Conference, said Democrats in Congress have abandoned bipartisanship, pointing to their unilateral passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, a COVID-19 stimulus bill, using budget reconciliation to avoid needing votes from Republicans. Democrats are considering using the same strategy for a massive $2 trillion infrastructure plan that could also include climate change and health care provisions.

The legislation might also include a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax system that would charge drivers based on the amount of miles they drive as one of the funding mechanisms for the proposal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has referred to the Democrats' agenda, specifically H.R. 1, as a "power grab." He recently said the legislation is an attempt to win elections in perpetuity.

"They want to change the system to benefit themselves and they want to have instead of a referee they want the FEC to be a prosecutor," McConnell said on Tuesday. "So this is not about anything other than trying to help the Democrats win elections in perpetuity."

“President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, and the Democrats have avoided even the pretense of bipartisan negotiation and are instead ramming their disastrous agenda into law," Cheney told Just the News in a statement. "The consequences for our country will be severe. We know their policies will undermine our security, weaken our economy, and destroy jobs. That’s why we must not only stand up to their bad ideas, but explain to the American people why our conservative vision that empowers people and champions freedom is the best path forward.”

 

[marsh]

California Takes All Votes, But Not All Newsom Recall Signatures

When it comes to leftists protecting their own from accountability, it appears that only the strictest of scrutiny will do.

thefederalist.com

California Officials Accepted 99.4 Percent Of Mail-In Ballots In 2020. With Newsom Recall, It’s A Completely Different Story

When it comes to leftists protecting their own from accountability, it appears that only the strictest of scrutiny will do.

By Jonathan S. Tobin
MARCH 25, 2021

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has all but conceded that he’s going to have to face a recall in November. Supporters of the effort to recall Newsom submitted 2.1 million signatures by last week’s deadline, surpassing the 1.5 million mark (12 percent of registered Californian voters) needed to trigger an election.

The question is, how many of those signatures are valid? According to the law, all those signings must be registered voters in the state.

State officials are going through the petitions carefully, weeding out names they say can’t be verified. As of March 11, some 266,637 signatures — 18.3 percent of those checked by that date — had been rejected as invalid by the state, raising the total of valid signatures accepted by the state to 1,188,073. Applying the same rate of rejection to the nearly 1 million yet to be verified by the state, that would give the recall effort more than enough to require Newsom to face the voters again to account for his hypocritical reign of error during the pandemic.

Newsom has attempted to discredit the recall by claiming it’s being led by “right-wing militia groups … supporters of QAnon conspiracy theorists, [and] white supremacist groups.” While even Newsom must admit the extremists he cites could account for only a tiny fraction of the millions who support the recall, the statement is a sad reflection of Democratic Party assertions that their Republican opponents are “deplorables” and “insurrectionists.”

Still, two questions hang over the process that haven’t drawn the necessary attention of the overwhelmingly leftist media on the state and national level. While it’s clear California state officials were going over the recall petitions with a fine-tooth comb, attempting to disqualify as many signatures as possible, are we to believe they were as scrupulous when analyzing the legality of the mail-in ballots Californians cast in the 2020 presidential election?

Just as important, however, is how the effort to verify signatures and challenge any that might be suspicious squares with the spirit of the text of the sweeping “election reform” bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this month. The bill seeks, among many other provisions, to ban voter ID laws and therefore make it difficult to verify the legality of any vote cast, either by mail or in-person.

In 2020, 15.4 million ballots were cast by mail in California out of 17.7 million cast, a whopping 86.7 percent. It was a huge increase over any previous election and far more than what the Pew Research Center reported was a nationwide rate of more than 46 percent who did not vote in person.

Of those, only 86,401 votes were thrown out as invalid for a variety of reasons, including arriving too late, lacking a signature, or not matching the signature recorded for the voter in question, meaning 99.4 percent of all mailed-in ballots were legal. That staggering rate was higher than the 98.5 percent acceptance rate recorded in the California primary held earlier that year.

That number is far lower than historical rates of acceptance for mail-in ballots, which traditionally are far more likely to involve problems since voters are not supervised and can forget to sign them. In the 2016 election, more than 1.2 percent of those cast by mail were ruled invalid nationwide, a number that was expected to be far higher with many more people voting by mail in 2020 because of the fear created by the coronavirus pandemic.

In some places, the lack of experience in voting by mail did result in high rejection rates. In New York City, some 84,000 votes, 23 percent of all those cast in the June 2020 primary, were thrown out, a total that was explained by the fact so many New Yorkers were voting in this manner for the first time.

But in the general election, rejection rates were far lower virtually everywhere — especially in California. That might have been the result of voter education campaigns, but it also raises the suspicion that the effort to “count every vote” affected officials, especially in blue states, causing standards to be lower than in previous elections.

Since such undertakings are organized by volunteers rather than state officials, it is perhaps to be expected that recall petitions would have a higher rejection rate than even the most carefully supervised mail-in election. But it certainly appears California election officials who disqualified only about a half of a percent of all mail-in ballots were not looking as closely at the signatures of those documents as they seem to have done for the petition to recall Newsom.

Just as important, the state’s attempt to invalidate signatures doesn’t appear to be in keeping with the idea of making every vote count that was behind the Democratic Party’s 2021 “For The People Act,” which seems intent on stripping away all efforts to assure the integrity of vote counts.

That legislation, which Republicans plan on blocking in the Senate, treats voter ID laws as a form of “voter suppression.” The bill would also drastically reduce states’ ability to remove invalid registrations from their rolls to purge those who have died or moved away (President Joe Biden referred to such rules as “an unprecedented assault on our democracy”). Yet, in California, Democrats who were trying to stop the recall were not concerned with defending the notion that every signature, just like every vote, should be counted.

Nor should they have been. Recalling a governor is a drastic measure. It is incumbent on the state to challenge each signature to be sure it was submitted by a registered voter who had a right to have his say on Newsom’s political future. California has every right to use all of the time allotted before certifying that the recall has been mandated (signatures can be challenged until April 29).

But for voting in elections, Democrats are not so meticulous about validating votes. They treat every challenge to votes and every attempt to ensure that illegal ballots as an unmitigated outrage, despite the fact illegal voting is hardly far-fetched given that there may be as many as 29 million illegal immigrants in the country.

While leftists claim any comparison between the scrutiny given the recall petitions and the 2020 mailed-in ballots is bogus, it’s hard to imagine a 99.4 acceptance rate for votes being anything but the product of a determination not to reject all but the most blatantly illegal ballots. But when protecting their officeholders from accountability for not practicing what they preach during COVID lockdowns, it appears that only the strictest scrutiny will do.

 

[marsh]

Amid setbacks, prosecutors abandon some claims in U.S. Capitol riot cases

Prosecutors made some serious claims after the deadly U.S. Capitol attack, saying they had evidence rioters planned to kill elected officials, suggesting a Virginia man at the building received directives to gas lawmakers, and accusing another suspect of directing mayhem...

www.reuters.com

Amid setbacks, prosecutors abandon some claims in U.S. Capitol riot cases
By Sarah N. Lynch

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prosecutors made some serious claims after the deadly U.S. Capitol attack, saying they had evidence rioters planned to kill elected officials, suggesting a Virginia man at the building received directives to gas lawmakers, and accusing another suspect of directing mayhem on Jan. 6 with encrypted messages.



But the Justice Department has since acknowledged in court hearings that some of its evidence concerning the riot - carried out by a mob of supporters of former President Donald Trump to try to overturn his election loss - is less damning than it initially indicated.

The department suffered another blow this week when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta threatened to impose a gag order on prosecutors after Michael Sherwin, its former head prosecutor on the Capitol cases, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” program that evidence pointed toward sedition charges against some defendants.

A charge of sedition - meaning incitement of a rebellion - has not been brought against any of the more than 400 people arrested to date. The most serious charges have been assault, conspiracy and obstruction of Congress or law enforcement.

Prosecutors are in the early stages of building criminal cases ahead of the trials stemming from an attack that left five people dead including a police officer, forced lawmakers to hide for their own safety and interrupted the formal congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.

But missteps by the government could harm its credibility as accused ringleaders begin asking courts to drop some of the most serious charges.

“They are trying to build the most horrendous cases they can because the public wants it - and this is politicizing criminal justice,” said Gerald B. Lefcourt, who for decades has represented high-profile defendants in political demonstrations, including Black Panther leaders and “Chicago Seven” trial figure Abbie Hoffman.

The Justice Department declined to comment, saying it cannot discuss ongoing cases.

SWEEPING PROBE
Prosecutors are focused on investigating whether rioters conspired in advance. Sherwin established a task force focused on whether to bring seditious conspiracy charges.

About two dozen defendants are facing conspiracy charges including 10 people accused of ties to the right-wing anti-government Oath Keepers militia.

On Jan. 19, prosecutors said they believed Thomas Caldwell, a retired U.S. Navy officer from Virginia, had a “leadership role” within the Oath Keepers. The FBI, in a criminal complaint, described Facebook messages Caldwell allegedly sent and received “while at the Capitol,” including one urging him to turn on the gas and tear up the floorboards.

“‘All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas,’” it read.

A prosecutor in Florida read those words aloud in February in a bid to convince a judge to detain two of Caldwell’s co-defendants. Prosecutors now acknowledge that Caldwell was not even a dues-paying member of the Oath Keepers and that they lack evidence he ever entered the Capitol.

There also are questions about the Facebook messages. Caldwell’s lawyer said in a March 10 court filing those messages were sent by two men who were more than 60 miles (100 km) away at the time and had no connection to the Oath Keepers. The comments were apparently satirical, albeit “tasteless,” his lawyer said, and Caldwell never responded to them.

Prosecutors have made no references to these Facebook messages in subsequent indictments and court filings. The judge has since released Caldwell on home detention, saying: “There’s evidence here that I think is favorable to Mr. Caldwell.”

Caldwell has pleaded not guilty.

In January, prosecutors in Arizona who were seeking to detain a man named Jacob Chansley, famously pictured inside the Capitol donning face paint and horns on his head, said they had “strong evidence,” including “Chansley’s own words and actions,” that the “intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials.” They reversed course the next day.

In another case, prosecutors said in a March 1 court filing that Ethan Nordean, a member of the right-wing Proud Boys group, “dressed all in black, wearing a tactical vest, led the Proud Boys through the use of encrypted communications.” Prosecutors subsequently acknowledged that Nordean’s cell phone battery died on Jan. 6 and was not functioning the entire day.

A judge denied a prosecution bid to jail Nordean, citing a “dearth of evidence” that he directed others to use or carry weapons. Prosecutors are now making a third attempt to have him detained.

Michael Ferrara, a former federal prosecutor now with the law firm Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, said while bail arguments do not require the same high standard of proof as criminal trials and can sometimes venture into “hyperbole,” some of the potential issues with the evidence in the Oath Keepers case could haunt prosecutors.

If it turns out prosecutors misunderstood the meaning of certain text messages, that would not be a “small error,” Ferrara said. This could “color the way the judge sees this case going forward” and impact outcomes on everything from plea deals to motions to dismiss charges, Ferrara added.

 

[Dobbin]

In another case, prosecutors said in a March 1 court filing that Ethan Nordean, a member of the right-wing Proud Boys group, “dressed all in black, wearing a tactical vest, led the Proud Boys through the use of encrypted communications.” Prosecutors subsequently acknowledged that Nordean’s cell phone battery died on Jan. 6 and was not functioning the entire day.

Died or was removed by someone with at least an ounce of situational awareness who realizes the online "electronic track" that such a device leaves. The action of doing so also disables anything but a "hand gesture command" leadership communication - AND a whole different set of movie, video, or cell-phone documentation required as "evidence". of his leadership. Evidence which may not be available or difficult to determine.

One imagines this one saw the bicycle racks being moved by the Capital Police, the friendly gestures of those waving, and the "we'll leave the light on" inside, and decided a major action was unwarranted - or unwise - or unnecessary given the smiles and general good feeling at that location.

Best way to describe the 400 being charged - "Political Prisoners." Only slightly more safe than Cuban Batista supporters.

Dobbin

 

[marsh]

DOJ admits there’s little evidence to support Jan. 6 sedition charges

The Department of Justice has since said that a portion of the evidence is not actually quite as damning as was previously believed.

thepostmillennial.com

DOJ admits there's little evidence to support Jan. 6 sedition charges

The Department of Justice has since said that a portion of the evidence is not actually quite as damning as was previously believed.

Libby EmmonsBrooklyn, NY
March 25, 2021 9:07 AM2 Mins Reading

As the trials get underway for those who participated in the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, it turns out that the charges against these defendants are not as serious as the public was initially led to believe. The Department of Justice has since said that a portion of the evidence is not actually quite as damning as was previously believed.

Reuters reports that none of those 400 who have been charged have been charged with sedition, which would be an incitement of rebellion. Instead, the most serious charge brought against any of the defendants has been assault. Two of the men who were charged with assault on Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick used bear spray in the attack.

Others have been charged with conspiracy, and obstruction. While five people lost their lives during the riot, only one was killed with a weapon, and that was Ashli Babbit, who died after being shot by an unnamed Capitol Police Officer. Sicknick was assaulted with bear spray, but died some time later and a cause of death has not been released. The other three suffered medical emergencies.

Much of the work of prosecutors has been in an attempt to prove that conspiracy. Less than 25 people are facing that charge, and ten people are said to have ties to the Oath Keeper militia movement.

Arizona prosecutors who detained Jacob Chansley, the horned "shaman" styled figure, had initially said that they had "strong evidence," inclusive of his "own words and actions," that indicated that the "intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials." This did not prove out, and no evidence of that nature was submitted.

Another man, Ethan Nordean, was accused of sending "encrypted communications" to the Proud Boys, but this, too, was dropped when it turned out that his phone battery died and he was unable to use it. The judge in Nordean's case said there was a "dearth of evidence" and declined to jail him. Prosecutors are trying again, however.

Michael Ferrara, an attorney with Kaplan Hecker & Fink, LLP, who was formerly a federal prosecutor, said that if it becomes clear that prosecutors overreached, engaged in hyperbole, of simply misunderstood social media and text messages, it would be no "small error."

In fact, Ferrara said, the prosecutors' zealotry could "color the way the judge see the case going forward," which would impact outcomes for defendants.

It was widely pushed in media after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot that those who engaged in the activity of disrupting congress were armed and violent and that senators and representatives feared for their lives. However, the investigation into the actions of that day have revealed that no one was armed with a fire arm, and the most egregious assault charges are against men who were armed with bear spray.

 

[Dobbin]

In fact, Ferrara said, the prosecutors' zealotry could "color the way the judge see the case going forward," which would impact outcomes for defendants.

Perhaps the division of state into three governmental entities has good reason for existence?

Sorry. I try to retain a positive attitude to the machinations of humanity.

Dobbin

 

[marsh]

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp Signs Election Integrity Bill

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) has signed an elections bill which would strengthen voting rules in the Peach State.

www.breitbart.com

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp Signs Election Integrity Bill
5,081

Jessica McGowan/Getty Images
KYLE MORRIS25 Mar 2021450

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) has signed an election bill that would strengthen voting rules in the Peach State by limiting the number of ballot drop boxes and establishing photo ID requirements for absentee voters, among other things.

The legislation, Senate Bill 202, was passed along party lines by Georgia’s General Assembly with votes of 100-75 in the House and 34-20 in the Senate. It aims to enhance voting rules to ensure more fair and safe elections.

As reported by the Hill, the bill will “require voters to provide a driver’s license or state-issued ID card number to request and submit absentee ballots, and it would curtail the use of ballot drop boxes, limiting their placement to early-voting locations and making them accessible only while the precinct is open.”

The bill also gives the Georgia State Elections Board the ability to take over county election boards in areas that may require oversight. Georgia’s Secretary of State, currently held by Brad Raffensperger, would also be removed as chair of the State Elections Board.

In addition, the bill, which has now been signed into law, shortens the runoff election span, taking it from nine weeks after the general election to four weeks and prevents food or beverages from being given to voters who are waiting in line to vote.

Former Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA), now the head of a key grassroots organization Greater Georgia, applauded the passage of the bill:

2020 saw rapid and inconsistent changes to our elections.
Today's passage of SB202 will restore confidence by strengthening election integrity & expanding access to voting.
Thank you to the Georgia Legislature & Governor for your leadership in this effort.
Full statement pic.twitter.com/9ASeJuGtin
— Kelly Loeffler (@KLoeffler) March 25, 2021

 

[marsh]

Martin Luther King III: GOP GA Voting Law Absolutely 'Racist' -- 'Jim Crow Era Kind of Legislation'

Martin Luther King III, the son of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., said on CNN Thursday that the Georgia Republican's newly-passed election law was absolutely "racist." | Clips

www.breitbart.com

Martin Luther King III: GOP GA Voting Law Absolutely ‘Racist’ — ‘Jim Crow Era Kind of Legislation’

PAM KEY25 Mar 202118

Martin Luther King III, the son of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., said on CNN Thursday that the Georgia Republican’s newly-passed election law was absolutely “racist.”

King said, “It’s a very sad day for this state. It bodes to moving back to Jim Crow era kind of legislation. The impact certainly has the potential to reduce voters, particularly of color, who normally would have — all voters would have a longer time to vote. I think there’s something in that legislation that says you can’t even bring somebody water. How inhumane can these legislators be? Even though the governor didn’t vote, he approved it by signing the legislation.

It’s not surprising. It’s greatly disappointing that our state has gone in this direction.”

He continued, “What it means is that people are going to have to be more vigilant, Black people, young people, older people, poor people are going to have for more vigilant. It’s unfortunate this trend is happening across America and over 40 states across our nation. It used to be a time, if you called someone a racist, they would want to retreat. Now it seems to be en vogue and all right to be a racist. It’s a sad day in America, quite frankly.”

Anchor Pamela Brown said, “So you’re saying that you view the bill he signed as a form of racism?”

King said, “Oh, absolutely.”

He continued, “Why would you restrict? We’re supposed to be expanding the right to vote to make it easier, not restricting the right to vote. It’s a travesty, tragic. And I think voters, maybe this is going to backfire. The hope is that more and more people will vote because they made it so much more difficult by what they have done, which should be unconstitutional. We lead the nation and the world in promoting democracy, but we are blocking democracy at home. It’s a sad day in Georgia and a sad day for America.”

 

[marsh]

Democrat Georgia Lawmaker Arrested, Dragged Out of Capitol For Interrupting Kemp's Livestream Announcement That He Signed New Election Legislation (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

On Thursday Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R) signed a sweeping bill that overhauls his state’s election laws that includes new restrictions on mail-in voting.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Democrat Georgia Lawmaker Arrested, Dragged Out of Capitol For Interrupting Kemp’s Livestream Announcement That He Signed New Election Legislation (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila
Published March 25, 2021 at 7:40pm

On Thursday Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R) signed a sweeping bill that overhauls his state’s election laws that includes new restrictions on mail-in voting.

The legislation was pushed through Georgia’s House and Senate after Kemp and the crooked Secretary of State handed Georgia over to the Democrats in TWO separate elections.

Because of mail-in ballots, ballot drop boxes, no signature checks and ballot harvesting, the Democrats took control of the White House and flipped the Senate blue.

Kemp finally signed new election laws that would require a photo ID in order to vote by absentee ballot and it would limit the number of drop boxes (they should be eliminated completely).

One Georgia state lawmaker became furious with Governor Kemp for signing new election laws that she began knocking on Kemp’s door where he was live-streaming his announcement.

Rep. Park Cannon (D-Atlanta) was forcibly removed, dragged through the Capitol and arrested by Georgia State Troopers.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported:

Georgia state troopers arrested state Rep. Park Cannon on Thursday as she knocked on Gov. Brian Kemp’s door, interrupting his livestreamed announcement that he had signed an elections bill into law.
The officers forcibly removed Cannon, a Democrat from Atlanta, dragging her through the Capitol and pushing her into a police car.
Cannon was with several other protesters when she knocked on Kemp’s office door, saying the public should be allowed to witness the announcement of the bill signing. The sweeping legislation requires ID for absentee ballots, limits drop boxes and changes early voting hours.

A woman named Tamara Stevens captured the arrest on Facebook live.

WATCH:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1375224814147895298

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1375224814147895298
1:56 min

Additional footage of the arrest:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1375219999057530883

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1375219999057530883
.30 min

 

[marsh]

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE - After Certifying Sham 2020 Election Results - Georgia Gov. Kemp Signs New Election Legislation | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

What a total disgrace Georgia Republican leadership was in the 2020 election. They certified a fraudulent result for President then allowed the same process to steal not one, but two US Senate seats. Now they make changes!

www.thegatewaypundit.com

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE – After Certifying Sham 2020 Election Results – Georgia Gov. Kemp Signs New Election Legislation

By Joe Hoft
Published March 25, 2021 at 7:25pm

What a total disgrace Georgia Republican leadership was in the 2020 election. They certified a fraudulent result for President then allowed the same process to steal not one, but two US Senate seats. Now they make changes!

Tonight the corrupt governor of Georgia, Republican Brian Kemp, signed a bill pushed through Georgia’s House and Senate after the totally corrupt results in the 2020 election for President from Georgia were certified. The AP reports:

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp on Thursday signed into law a sweeping Republican-sponsored overhaul of state elections that includes new restrictions on voting by mail and gives the legislature greater control over how elections are run..

…Among highlights, the law requires a photo ID in order to vote absentee by mail, after more than 1.3 million Georgia voters used that option during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also cuts the time people have to request an absentee ballot and limits where ballot drop boxes can be placed and when they can be accessed.

Republican Rep. Jan Jones said the provisions cutting the time people have to request an absentee ballot are meant to “increase the likelihood of a voter’s vote being cast successfully,” after concerns were raised in 2020 about mail ballots not being received by counties in time to be counted.

One of the biggest changes gives the GOP-controlled legislature more control over election administration, a change that has raised concerns among voting rights groups that it could lead to greater partisan influence.

The law replaces the elected secretary of state as the chair of the state election board with a new appointee of the legislature after Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger rebuffed Trump’s attempts to overturn Georgia’s election results. It also allows the board to remove and replace county election officials deemed to be underperforming.

That provision is widely seen as something that could be used to target Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold covering most of Atlanta, which came under fire after long lines plagued primary elections over the summer.

Kemp’s Georgia certified the 2020 Presidential election results in Georgia despite numerous fraudulent activities recorded during the election, impacting the results.

The Same Organized Fraud That Took Place in Michigan Took Place In Georgia on Election Night – Republicans Were Removed from the Counting Area and then Massive Spike in Biden Only Votes is Recorded

We saw ballots run through tabulators three times by election workers after kicking all Trump supporters out of the building on Election Night:

UNBELIEVABLE: Anti-Trump Democrat In Georgia ‘Suitcase Scandal’ Caught Running Same Batch of Ballots Through Tabulator THREE TIMES! (VIDEO)

And of course, still to this day, Georgia has over 400,000 ballots that have no chain of custody documentation that were counted in the 2020 Presidential election (most likely nearly all for Joe Biden). This documentation is required by law. Oh, and Biden was given the win in the state by a fraction of this (12,000).

UPDATE: Four Months After the 2020 Election in Georgia, Over 400,000 Absentee Ballots are Missing Legally Required Chain of Custody Documentation, Yet Biden Was Given the State by 12,000 Votes

Clearly, President Trump won the election in Georgia in 2020 but goons in charge who certified the results believed their pick for President was more important than the votes of the citizens in their state. Now, after pushing through fraudulent results, they make changes.

Watching this dark red state get torn apart by Democrats and crooked Republicans was grotesque.

Georgians should be outraged.

 

[Tristan]

California Takes All Votes, But Not All Newsom Recall Signatures

When it comes to leftists protecting their own from accountability, it appears that only the strictest of scrutiny will do.

thefederalist.com

California Officials Accepted 99.4 Percent Of Mail-In Ballots In 2020. With Newsom Recall, It’s A Completely Different Story

When it comes to leftists protecting their own from accountability, it appears that only the strictest of scrutiny will do.

By Jonathan S. Tobin
MARCH 25, 2021

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has all but conceded that he’s going to have to face a recall in November. Supporters of the effort to recall Newsom submitted 2.1 million signatures by last week’s deadline, surpassing the 1.5 million mark (12 percent of registered Californian voters) needed to trigger an election.

The question is, how many of those signatures are valid? According to the law, all those signings must be registered voters in the state.

State officials are going through the petitions carefully, weeding out names they say can’t be verified. As of March 11, some 266,637 signatures — 18.3 percent of those checked by that date — had been rejected as invalid by the state, raising the total of valid signatures accepted by the state to 1,188,073. Applying the same rate of rejection to the nearly 1 million yet to be verified by the state, that would give the recall effort more than enough to require Newsom to face the voters again to account for his hypocritical reign of error during the pandemic.

Newsom has attempted to discredit the recall by claiming it’s being led by “right-wing militia groups … supporters of QAnon conspiracy theorists, [and] white supremacist groups.” While even Newsom must admit the extremists he cites could account for only a tiny fraction of the millions who support the recall, the statement is a sad reflection of Democratic Party assertions that their Republican opponents are “deplorables” and “insurrectionists.”

Still, two questions hang over the process that haven’t drawn the necessary attention of the overwhelmingly leftist media on the state and national level. While it’s clear California state officials were going over the recall petitions with a fine-tooth comb, attempting to disqualify as many signatures as possible, are we to believe they were as scrupulous when analyzing the legality of the mail-in ballots Californians cast in the 2020 presidential election?

Just as important, however, is how the effort to verify signatures and challenge any that might be suspicious squares with the spirit of the text of the sweeping “election reform” bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this month. The bill seeks, among many other provisions, to ban voter ID laws and therefore make it difficult to verify the legality of any vote cast, either by mail or in-person.

In 2020, 15.4 million ballots were cast by mail in California out of 17.7 million cast, a whopping 86.7 percent. It was a huge increase over any previous election and far more than what the Pew Research Center reported was a nationwide rate of more than 46 percent who did not vote in person.

Of those, only 86,401 votes were thrown out as invalid for a variety of reasons, including arriving too late, lacking a signature, or not matching the signature recorded for the voter in question, meaning 99.4 percent of all mailed-in ballots were legal. That staggering rate was higher than the 98.5 percent acceptance rate recorded in the California primary held earlier that year.

That number is far lower than historical rates of acceptance for mail-in ballots, which traditionally are far more likely to involve problems since voters are not supervised and can forget to sign them. In the 2016 election, more than 1.2 percent of those cast by mail were ruled invalid nationwide, a number that was expected to be far higher with many more people voting by mail in 2020 because of the fear created by the coronavirus pandemic.

In some places, the lack of experience in voting by mail did result in high rejection rates. In New York City, some 84,000 votes, 23 percent of all those cast in the June 2020 primary, were thrown out, a total that was explained by the fact so many New Yorkers were voting in this manner for the first time.

But in the general election, rejection rates were far lower virtually everywhere — especially in California. That might have been the result of voter education campaigns, but it also raises the suspicion that the effort to “count every vote” affected officials, especially in blue states, causing standards to be lower than in previous elections.

Since such undertakings are organized by volunteers rather than state officials, it is perhaps to be expected that recall petitions would have a higher rejection rate than even the most carefully supervised mail-in election. But it certainly appears California election officials who disqualified only about a half of a percent of all mail-in ballots were not looking as closely at the signatures of those documents as they seem to have done for the petition to recall Newsom.

Just as important, the state’s attempt to invalidate signatures doesn’t appear to be in keeping with the idea of making every vote count that was behind the Democratic Party’s 2021 “For The People Act,” which seems intent on stripping away all efforts to assure the integrity of vote counts.

That legislation, which Republicans plan on blocking in the Senate, treats voter ID laws as a form of “voter suppression.” The bill would also drastically reduce states’ ability to remove invalid registrations from their rolls to purge those who have died or moved away (President Joe Biden referred to such rules as “an unprecedented assault on our democracy”). Yet, in California, Democrats who were trying to stop the recall were not concerned with defending the notion that every signature, just like every vote, should be counted.

Nor should they have been. Recalling a governor is a drastic measure. It is incumbent on the state to challenge each signature to be sure it was submitted by a registered voter who had a right to have his say on Newsom’s political future. California has every right to use all of the time allotted before certifying that the recall has been mandated (signatures can be challenged until April 29).

But for voting in elections, Democrats are not so meticulous about validating votes. They treat every challenge to votes and every attempt to ensure that illegal ballots as an unmitigated outrage, despite the fact illegal voting is hardly far-fetched given that there may be as many as 29 million illegal immigrants in the country.

While leftists claim any comparison between the scrutiny given the recall petitions and the 2020 mailed-in ballots is bogus, it’s hard to imagine a 99.4 acceptance rate for votes being anything but the product of a determination not to reject all but the most blatantly illegal ballots. But when protecting their officeholders from accountability for not practicing what they preach during COVID lockdowns, it appears that only the strictest scrutiny will do.

Yeah, but that's different!

 

[marsh]

Judicial Watch Sues Georgia Secretary of State for Records about Changes to Processing of Absentee Ballots in 2020 Election, and 2021 Trump/Raffensperger Call - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed two Georgia Open Records Act lawsuits against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger for records related to: (1) the March 6, 2020 consent agreement regarding the processing of absentee ballots in the November 3, 2020...

www.judicialwatch.org

MARCH 23, 2021|JUDICIAL WATCH

Judicial Watch Sues Georgia Secretary of State for Records about Changes to Processing of Absentee Ballots in 2020 Election, and 2021 Trump/Raffensperger Call

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed two Georgia Open Records Act lawsuits against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger for records related to: (1) the March 6, 2020 consent agreement regarding the processing of absentee ballots in the November 3, 2020 general election (Judicial Watch v. Brad Raffensperger (No. 2021 cv 347236)); and (2) the January 2, 2021 telephone call between Raffensperger and President Trump (Judicial Watch v. Brad Raffensperger (No. 2021 cv 347237));

The first lawsuit was filed after Secretary of State Raffensperger failed to respond to a November 17, 2020 request for:

All records related to the March 6, 2020 Consent Agreement entered into by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and others relating to the processing of absentee ballots by the Secretary of State in the November 3, 2020 general election, including but not limited to emails regarding the agreement sent to and from Raffensperger, State Election Board Vice Chair Rebecca N. Sullivan, State Election Board Member David J. Worley, State Election Board Member Matthew Mashburn, and/or State Election Board Member Anh Le.

Judicial Watch second lawsuit is for:

All emails sent to and from Secretary of State Raffensperger, Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs and General Counsel Brian Germany regarding the January 2, 2021 telephone call between President Trump, Secretary Raffensperger and others concerning alleged election fraud in Georgia.

On March 6, 2020, Secretary of State Raffensperger and other Georgia officials signed a consent decree with the Democratic Party of Georgia, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that critics contend improperly weakened anti-fraud measures related absentee ballots.

In an hour-long telephone call on January 2, 2021, President Trump and Raffensperger discussed Trump’s concerns about voter fraud in Georgia. The conversation became controversial after Raffensperger’s office allegedly leaked a recording of the call to the Washington Post.

“We want to know more about what happened behind the scenes in Georgia during the 2020 election,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hiding key records about the controversial settlement agreement and the President’s leaked phone call with Raffensperger prevents Americans from knowing the full story and deciding for themselves whether the outcome in Georgia was fair.”

Relatedly, in April 2020, Judicial Watch identified thousands of persons who may have registered to vote in Georgia at non-residential addresses. Judicial Watch shared its data with Raffensperger’s office at the time and requested an investigation. On January 5 of this year, Judicial Watch announced that, of this list of voters who may have registered using non-residential addresses, 4,700 voted absentee in the 2020 presidential election. Georgia law requires that citizens registering to vote must reside “in that place in which such person’s habitation is fixed….”

In 2020, Judicial Watch sued North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Colorado for failing to clean up their voter rolls and also sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of federal law. These lawsuits are ongoing. Judicial Watch also has filed dozens of public records requests in multiple States about the 2020 election.

John J. Park, Jr. of Gainesville, GA, is serving as Judicial Watch’s local counsel.

 

[Dobbin]

In 2020, Judicial Watch sued North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Colorado for failing to clean up their voter rolls and also sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of federal law. These lawsuits are ongoing. Judicial Watch also has filed dozens of public records requests in multiple States about the 2020 election.

SOME of these cases will actually be heard and adjudicated, very likely for the plaintiff (Judicial Watch)

It won't change a thing from the 2020 election, but they will "wake up" the legislatures and state Admins that they do have a legal responsibility to keep things at least "visually fair."

It (the voting system) will "look good" when they're done. But it won't "stay good." There are legions of statist government poll workers who will make the subterfuge happen.

And then the "shocked" faces will come out to assuage the voters. "Oh we never thought this could happen - it must be a singular anomaly."

Just like rolling tables stuffed underneath with faux ballots manned by Biden aficionados being pulled out in the middle of the night - election "locks" only keep the honest election officials above reproach.

Stalin was EXACTLY RIGHT. And Dems have NO intellectual concept of how unfair can go both ways - and probably will when the voting ballot morphs into a bullet.

Dobbin

 

[marsh]

Dominion Voting Systems Sue FOX News for $1.6 Billion over 2020 Elections -- Follows Smartmatic Lawsuit | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Dominion Voting Systems sued FOX News on Friday for $1.6 billion in a defamation lawsuit.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Dominion Voting Systems Sue FOX News for $1.6 Billion over 2020 Elections — Follows Smartmatic Lawsuit

By Jim Hoft
Published March 26, 2021 at 9:22am

Dominion Voting Systems sued FOX News on Friday for $1.6 billion in a defamation lawsuit.

Back in November FOX News host Dana Perino urged Dominion Voting Systems to sue Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

FOX News Dumpster Fire: Dana Perino Urges Dominion Voting to Sue Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell — Attorney Lin Wood Responds

FOX News was also sued by Smartmatic following the 2020 election.

The AP reported:

Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News on Friday, arguing the cable news giant falsely claimed in an effort to boost faltering ratings that the voting company had rigged the 2020 election.

The lawsuit is part of a growing body of legal action filed by the voting company and other targets of misleading, false and bizarre claims spread by President Donald Trump and his allies in the aftermath of Trump’s election loss to Joe Biden. Those claims helped spur on rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in a violent siege that left five people dead, including a police officer. The siege led to Trump’s historic second impeachment.

Dominion argues that Fox News, which amplified inaccurate assertions that Dominion altered votes, “sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process,” according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by The Associated Press.

“The truth matters. Lies have consequences,” the lawsuit said. “Fox sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process. If this case does not rise to the level of defamation by a broadcaster, then nothing does.”

Even before Dominion’s lawsuit on Friday, Fox News had already filed four motions to dismiss other legal actions against its coverage.

 

[marsh]

Catholic Priest Who Prayed and Performed Exorcism at US Capitol on Jan. 6 Faces Expulsion | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

A Nebraska Catholic priest who prayed at the US Capitol on January 6 faces expulsion from the church.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Catholic Priest Who Prayed and Performed Exorcism at US Capitol on Jan. 6 Faces Expulsion

By Jim Hoft
Published March 26, 2021 at 11:24am

A Nebraska Catholic priest who prayed at the US Capitol on January 6 faces expulsion from the church.

Father David Fulton told a videographer on January 6 that he performed an exorcism on the US Capitol.

Father Fulton walked inside the US Capitol during the demonstrations.

Archbishop George Lucas said Father Fulton’s actions were a “misuse of priestly ministry.”

Newsmax reported:

A Roman Catholic priest from Nebraska has angered his bishop for appearing at the Jan. 6 rally in support of then-President Donald Trump in his clerical collar and claiming he performed an exorcism at the U.S. Capitol.

The Rev. David Fulton, identified by the Omaha World-Herald as a pastor at St. Michael Parish in Central City, Nebraska, and St. Peter Catholic Church in Fullerton, Nebraska, appeared in a nearly 10-minute video titled “Voices from the Capitol Insurrection.”

Fulton appears in the video on the street with the Capitol in the background speaking to the camera confirming he performed an exorcism on the seat of Congress, because a demon is “dissolving the country.’

“Yes, I did,” Fulton said about performing the exorcism. “We’ll see, we’ll see what effect …”

And now Father Fulton faces expulsion from the priesthood after his actions.

 

[marsh]

The Democrats' "Voter Fraud Enhancement Act" (HR1) Will "Nationalize Election Theft" - Rep. Mo Brooks | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

Congressman Mo Brooks shared today on the War Room his thoughts on the socialists in DC trying to make permanent the election fraud that occurred in the 2020 Election. Brooks labeled HR1 the “Voter Fraud Enhancement Act”: What the socialists in Washington are trying to do is nationalize election...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The Democrats’ “Voter Fraud Enhancement Act” (HR1) Will “Nationalize Election Theft” – Rep. Mo Brooks

By Joe Hoft
Published March 26, 2021 at 2:30pm

Congressman Mo Brooks shared today on the War Room his thoughts on the socialists in DC trying to make permanent the election fraud that occurred in the 2020 Election.
Brooks labeled HR1 the “Voter Fraud Enhancement Act”:

What the socialists in Washington are trying to do is nationalize election theft and prevent legislatures from implementing better safeguards to help secure our election system so that we have more honest and accurate elections…

…What Georgia did, fantastic. It moves us in the right direction. I just hope that other states will do the same thing. And if I might give people a bible to look at on this election issue, go the Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by Democrat Jimmy Carter…

Rumble video on website 1:28 min

We reported on HR1 in January – It will eliminate real elections for perpetuity:

SHOCKING: The Democrats’ First Bill of 2021 Is to Lock In Fraudulent Election Maneuvers and Steal Elections in Perpetuity

It is really frightening that the Democrats are pushing forward on this bill after stealing the 2020 election for President. This will lock in fraudulent elections forever. Who are the real domestic terrorists?

 

[marsh]

Leftist Groups File Lawsuit Against Georgia Election Integrity Law

Left-wing groups have lodged a complaint against the election integrity measure Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed into law Thursday.

www.breitbart.com

Leftist Groups File Lawsuit Against Georgia Election Integrity Law
14

JEFF KOWALSKY/AFP via Getty Images
HANNAH BLEAU26 Mar 2021176

Left-wing groups have lodged a complaint against the election integrity measure Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed into law Thursday, deeming it a “Voter Suppression Bill.”

The complaint, filed in Atlanta on Thursday, contends the measure will make it “harder for lawful Georgia voters to participate in the State’s elections” and asserts it will “impose these unjustifiable burdens disproportionately on the State’s minority, young, poor, and disabled citizens.” The plaintiffs are listed as the New Georgia Project, Black Voters Matter Fund, and Rise Inc.

Changes, via the law, include “imposing voter ID requirements, limiting drop boxes and allowing state takeovers of local elections after last year’s close presidential race,” according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“These provisions lack any justification for their burdensome and discriminatory effects on voting,” the complaint states.

“Instead, they represent a hodgepodge of unnecessary restrictions that target almost every aspect of the voting process but serve no legitimate purpose or compelling state interest other than to make absentee, early, and election-day voting more difficult—especially for minority voters,” it continues, echoing the claims made by prominent Democrats, many of whom routinely describe basic election integrity measures as forms of voter suppression.

Some, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and President Joe Biden, have even made comparisons to the era of Jim Crow in recent days.

“Significant reforms to our state elections were needed,” Georgia Gov. Kemp said after signing the measure.

“There’s no doubt there were many alarming issues with how the election was handled, and those problems, understandably, led to a crisis of confidence in the ballot box here in Georgia,” he added.

The executive director of Heritage Action praised the Georgia “Election Integrity Act of 2021” after Kemp signed it, casting it as a model for the nation.

“Reforms to make voter ID requirements and early voting access more consistent statewide, modernize the state’s voting rolls, and ensure robust oversight of voting and elections will protect Georgia’s votes and make the state a model for the rest of the country,” Heritage Action executive director Jessica Anderson said in a statement.

Heritage Action also addressed the false claims Schumer touted during Wednesday’s Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing on S. 1, or the “For the People Act”:

Earlier today, @SenSchumer made several false comments about SB 202 going through the Georgia Legislature.
We're more than happy to #FactCheck the Senator and help him understand why SB 202 makes it easier to vote but harder to cheat.
See the CORRECT reforms below #GAPol pic.twitter.com/qFI5JQGHxq
— Heritage Action (@Heritage_Action) March 24, 2021

The lawsuit comes as Democrats continue to push the “For the People Act,” which would effectively strip states of their power to implement basic election integrity measures. This includes voter ID, which a majority of voters, including black and Hispanic voters, support.

 

[marsh]

First battlefront drawn in Georgia in epic fight over future of American elections

Is ID requirement a voter suppression tactic or a responsible security measure? Georgia is ground zero for settling debate, future of American elections.

justthenews.com

First battlefront drawn in Georgia in epic fight over future of American elections

Is ID requirement a voter suppression tactic or a responsible security measure? Georgia is ground zero for settling debate, future of American elections.

By John Solomon
Updated: March 26, 2021 - 12:37pm

Over just a few hours Thursday, Georgia's Legislature and Gov. Brian Kemp drew the first battle line in the high-stakes struggle to decide how American voters will cast ballots in the future after the pandemic-ridden election of 2020.

The Republican-controlled state put itself firmly in the camp of voter ID requirements, limited drop boxes and expanded weekend voting. And depending on the eye of the beholder, it was either a win for election integrity or a return to the era of Jim Crow voter suppression.

And the debate may be coming soon to a ballot box near you, as conservatives like Heritage Action for America and liberals like Stacey Abrams' Fair Fight gird to fight the issues in all 50 states and in Congress, likely all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Georgia's actions Thursday "helped galvanize an election integrity movement surging toward restored trust & confidence in elections where it's easy to vote & hard to cheat," the conservative Susan B. Anthony group crowed.

Countered Abrams on Twitter: "Now more than ever, we need federal action to protect voting rights as we continue to fight against these blatantly unconstitutional efforts that are nothing less than Jim Crow 2.0."

Democrats are pinning their hopes on the federal legislation known as H.R. 1, which would create federal mandates outlawing voter ID requirements and permitting widespread mail voting, while Republicans are turning to their GOP-controlled legislatures in the key battleground states and possibly the Supreme Court for a final verdict.

Where that battle ends, nobody knows. But almost everybody is certain it will be fought in the shadows of the 2022 election for Congress and the 2024 presidential contest, potentially setting the ground rules for a generation or more of voting.

Remarkably, the concept of voter ID that was widely embraced just 16 years ago by a bipartisan election commission chaired by former President Jimmy Carter has now become the leading symbol of what Democrats allege are Republican voter suppression tactics, even though most Americans need an ID for flying, buying beer or taking the SATs. (Carter himself now says the Georgia voter ID requirement makes him "saddened and angry.")

"Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check," the Commission on Federal Election Reform declared in 2005. "Voting is equally important."

Georgia's GOP-controlled state government rejected the notion that asking for an ID for a ballot was somehow inflammatory or suppressive. In fact, it thought it was a good solution to all the angst over the 2020 election processes.

"There's no doubt there were many alarming issues with how the election was handled, and those problems really led to a crisis of confidence in the ballot box here in Georgia," Gov. Kemp declared after signing the bill.

The 95-page bill written by Republicans passed the House of Representatives in a 100-75 party-line vote and in the Senate by a 34-20 party-line vote. It followed tight 2020 electoral contests in the state that saw Democrats win the presidency and the state's U.S. Senate seats.

The legislation's signature provision requires absentee voters to provide ID, replacing the signature-verifications used in 2020, and it prohibited the state from mailing out absentee ballot applications unsolicited as happened during the pandemic.

The law also:

• restricted ballot drop boxes to be located inside early voting locations, and to be unavailable in the last four days of an election;
• expanded weekend voting before general elections with required voting hours on two Saturdays statewide, and the option for counties to offer early voting on two Sundays;
• empowered the State Election Board to assume control of county election boards that it deemed need intervention;
• reduced the time span between elections and runoffs from nine weeks to four weeks.
• outlawed private money going to election officials after a $350 million campaign funded by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg did just that nationwide in the last election.

The bill ignited debate across the state, with Democrats howling it would restrict access to voting.

"It is unbelievable that there are still some people trying to stop people from voting today," Democratic state Rep. Erica Thomas said, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "You are changing the rules, cutting the voting hours, and making it more difficult for people to vote. Too many people fought, bled and died for our right to vote."

Republicans countered that the 2020 election was conducted under rules that were too loose and undermined confidence in lawful voting.

"Our goal is to ensure that voters in Georgia have confidence in the elections process," said state Sen. Max Burns, according to the Journal-Constitution. "This is a solid step in the right direction to provide voter integrity in Georgia."

The legislation reverberated all the way to Washington, where Biden called it "un-American" and vowed to fight election reform efforts in GOP states while the conservative Heritage Action for America group hailed it as a necessary reform that ensures absentee ballots can't be abused.

"The Peach State is in better hands because of these election integrity reforms," the group tweeted in a congratulatory statement shortly after Kemp signed the bill.

On Friday, several Georgia voting rights groups filed a complaint alleging the voting Law Gov. Kemp signed on Thursday illegally suppresses votes in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and other constitutional protections, according to The Hill.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

"Boycott Georgia" - Furious Dems React As Gov. Kemp Signs "Election Integrity" Bill

FRIDAY, MAR 26, 2021 - 07:00 AM
Democrats are furious after Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp last night signed an election bill that requires strengthening voting rules in the Peach State by limiting the number of ballot drop boxes, establishing photo ID requirements for absentee voters, and prohibiting distribution of food and drinks to voters waiting in line.

Just an hour before the signing, the GOP-controlled Georgia General Assembly passed the bill on a party-line vote as Democrats, including elected representatives from around the state, gathered to protest. The backlash was intense, and during the scuffle, at least one lawmaker was arrested, with video of her being led away by police going viral.



The bill is just one of dozens being considered in state capitols around the country in the wake of last year's presidential election, where signs of irregularities in states like PA, MI and even GA were repeatedly ignored by Democrats. Recently, the Washington Post recanted a story where it claimed that President Trump had personally pressured Georgia election officials, drawing a heated response from Trump himself.

According to a summary from the Hill, the bill includes sweeping changes to the state's voting rules and procedures.

It would require voters to provide a driver’s license or state-issued ID card number to request and submit absentee ballots, and it would curtail the use of ballot drop boxes, limiting their placement to early-voting locations and making them accessible only while the precinct is open.

The legislation also gives the Georgia State Elections Board the ability to effectively take over county elections boards in areas that it determines are in need of oversight. The secretary of state would also be removed as chair of the State Elections Board, a proposal that critics say would strip the state’s top elections official of a key power.
The bill also takes aim at the state’s absentee-ballot request period, setting the deadline for voters to request absentee ballots at 11 days before an election. It also calls for prohibiting people from giving food or drinks to voters waiting in line to cast their ballots.

Democrats slammed the bill, and others like it that are circulating in other states, as retaliation to the GOP's recent string of losses in critical Senate races (along with the presidential race, as we noted above). Twin victories for Democrats in GA special elections on Jan. 5 helped stoke support for the law, as Democrats relied on aggressive get-out-the-vote campaigns, absentee voting and millions in out-of-state dollars to clinch narrow victories for Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff.

Stacey Abrams, former gubernatorial candidate who has burnished her reputation as a national "voting rights" advocater, predicted a swift passage for the bill, accusing Republican lawmakers of trying to limit public review and awareness of the proposals.



During the chaotic protests held at the capitol Thursday evening as lawmakers in the assembly passed the bill, Georgia State Representative Park Cannon was arrested during a protest at the state capitol last night.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1375301488965214208

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1375301488965214208
.34 min

Per the Hill, Cannon was cuffed Thursday after she repeatedly knocked on Gov. Kemp's office door while he signed the bill.

After the arrest, Sen. Warnock visited Cannon in her holding cell at the Fulton County jail, and told reporters during an impromptu briefing out front that her arrest shouldn't have happened.

"She did not deserve this," he said, adding that she was "shaken" by what happened.

Calls to boycott the state of Georgia - a playbook used by progressives a few years back after North Carolina passed a "transphobic" bathroom bill - have already started circulating on twitter.



We imagine these calls will be amplified Friday morning by a legion of social media influencers urging their followers to join the boycott.