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

marsh

On TB every waking moment

— NEWS —
Wisconsin Assembly Authorizes Investigation of 2020 Presidential Election
Biden won the state by 20,682, or 0.63% of the more than 3.2 million votes cast

By Joseph Curl
Mar 24, 2021 DailyWire.com

U.S. President Donald Trump pauses while speaking during an event at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2020. Trump's acquittal by the Senate delivered an expected yet exhilarating victory to the White House, freeing a president who has for years operated under the threat of impeachment and longed for vindication. Photographer:
Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The Wisconsin Assembly has passed a resolution authorizing an investigation into the 2020 presidential election that President Joe Biden won, but former President Donald Trump sued over, forcing the state into a recount.

In the end, Biden won by 20,682, or 0.63% of the more than 3.2 million votes cast.

The resolution, opposed by every Democrat, gives Republicans, who control the chamber, authority to issue subpoenas to compel testimony and gather documents, said Rep. Joe Sanfelippo, the vice-chairman of the Assembly elections and campaign committee.

Trump and his allies claim there was voter fraud and other irregularities in the state, but those claims were rejected by state and federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court also refused to hear the case, and “no significant problems were found with the state’s voting machines after audits and recounts in both 2016 and in 2020,” The Associated Press reported.

“Republicans said they wanted to gather more evidence to see if laws were broken, but Democrats said they were trying to score political points, undermining the public’s faith in elections and insulting election clerks, poll workers and others who ran the election,” wrote the AP. “Earlier this month, Republicans raised new questions about how the election was administered in Green Bay. The Assembly elections committee held a hearing on those issues but did not invite any election officials accused of wrongdoing to testify. Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich called it a ‘Stalinist show trial’ and defended his city’s handling of the election.”

After his loss, Trump repeatedly claimed that voter fraud and ballot irregularities cost him the 2020 presidential election. But a recount in a key county in Wisconsin, a battleground state Joe Biden won by about 20,000 votes, found that the Democrat actually got more votes than originally reported.

Out of about 460,000 ballots cast in Milwaukee County, Biden picked up an additional 132 votes. Before the recount, Biden had 317,270 votes to Trump’s 134,357. After the recount, it was 317,527 for Biden and 134,482 for Trump, which meant Biden gained 257 votes and Trump added 125.

Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson, a Democrat, said the recount showed that elections in the county are fair, transparent, accurate and secure.

“I promised that this would be a transparent and fair process, and it was,” Christenson said.

“There was an examination of every ballot by election workers, a meticulous recounting of every ballot that was properly cast, a transparent process that allowed the public to observe, a fair process that allows the aggrieved candidate who sought the recount an opportunity to observe and object to ballots they believe should not be counted.”

But Trump continued to insist that he won the state. “Look at what’s going on in Wisconsin. Wisconsin, they’re finding tremendous discrepancy. You just take a look at that. Tremendous discrepancy,” the president said on Thanksgiving.

“In Wisconsin, you all said I was going to lose — or the polls said — certain polls: Washington Post, ABC — said I was going to lose by 17 points. Think of how dishonest. I thought I was going to win it. And essentially, I did win it. It’s very, very close. It’s very, very close.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Capitol Investigation Seeks to Criminalize Political Dissent
The government's response to the January 6 melee isn’t about justice. It’s about partisan retribution and revenge. And the consequences will be disastrous.
By Julie Kelly
ag-mark_90833ec2.svg

March 15, 2021

In the early hours of March 12, FBI agents in southwestern Florida barricaded a neighborhood to prepare to raid the home of one resident. Christopher Worrell of Cape Coral was arrested and charged with several counts related to the January 6 Capitol melee. Even though Worrell had been cooperating with the FBI for two months, the agency nonetheless unleashed a massive, and no doubt costly, display of force to take him into custody.

Law enforcement agents, according to one neighbor who spoke with a reporter, wore “whole outfits . . . like military and it was crazy. There was like six or seven . . . big black vehicles. They busted down the front door.” The raid included “armed men with helmets and a tanker truck” and was partially executed by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Worrell never entered the Capitol building on January 6; he isn’t accused of committing a violent crime. But a D.C. judge overturned a Florida judge’s ruling to release Worrell pending further review of his case. He remains in jail.

Ginning Up “Domestic Terrorism”
Worrell’s arrest is the latest in what the U.S. Department of Justice warned would be an “unprecedented” investigation leading to sedition charges filed against American citizens.

Attorney General Merrick Garland pledged to make the Capitol Breach manhunt his top priority; on his first day in office, he received an update on the investigation from FBI Director Christopher Wray. Garland has compared January 6 to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, including 15 children.

Roughly 300 people have been arrested so far, many of them transported to Washington, D.C. to await trial and dozens denied bail after federal prosecutors argued the defendants, including a high school senior from Georgia, pose a threat to the nation.

The Capitol Breach probe, the department’s official title, is a flagrant political prosecution targeting Trump supporters. Every display—from heavy-handed FBI raids to a militarized Washington, D.C.—is designed to portray the President Trump’s allies as domestic terrorists.

The differences between how the government is handling the January 6 defendants and other so-called protestors could not be more stark. For example, a Portland investigative reporter found the Justice Department has dropped more than one-third of the federal cases related to last summer’s riots in that city, with more to come. Only about a dozen people have been arrested for last week’s rioting in Portland, which included attacks on a federal courthouse.

But the violence in Portland is different, according to Merrick Garland, who said during his confirmation hearing the Capitol attack was “domestic terrorism” because the January 6 protestors attempted “to disrupt democratic processes.” The term doesn’t apply to attacks on the Portland courthouse, Garland claimed, because those only happen at night when court is out of session.

Lucky Antifa.

Stretching the Law
Garland’s explanation, however absurd it sounds to the majority of Americans, bolsters one of the Justice Department’s most widely-used allegations in its Capitol investigation. More than 75 protestors now face one count of “obstruction of an official proceeding.”

The temporary disruption of Congress’ attempt to certify the Electoral College results, a task completed 13 hours after the chaos began, is repeatedly cited in charging documents as evidence of wrongdoing: “It [is] a crime to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding—to include a proceeding before Congress—or make an attempt to do so,” several affidavits read.

But the government’s attempt to apply this vague law to defendants in the Capitol case is a stretch, to say the least. In several instances, it represents an enhancement charge to add a felony to mostly misdemeanor offenses.

Further, there’s no indication the law pertains to a proceeding before Congress. Here’s the exact text from the statute prosecutors cite: “Whoever corruptly . . . otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

The provision is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, signed into law in 2002 as a congressional response to the Enron and WorldCom scandals. Corporate bad actors—not regular citizens protesting the actions of their elected officials in a public government building paid for by taxpayers—are the proper targets of that law.

In his signing statement, President George W. Bush explicitly rebuked any intention to use the law against Americans. “To ensure that no infringement on the constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of grievances occurs in the enforcement of section 1512(c) . . . which among other things prohibits corruptly influencing any official proceeding, the executive branch shall construe the term ‘corruptly’ in section 1512(c)(2) as requiring proof of a criminal state of mind on the part of the defendant,” Bush said in July 2002.

No Speedy Trials
How will federal prosecutors convince a judge someone like Christopher Worrell, who never entered the building to try to stop Congress’s certification, had a “criminal state of mind” and wasn’t simply exercising his constitutional right to protest his own government?

What Worrell and others did—those who didn’t commit crimes such as assault a police officer or vandalize property—is wholly American and well within the protections of the First Amendment.

Perhaps that explains why thousands of protestors who occupied the Hart Senate Office building in October 2018 to interrupt the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh didn’t face “obstruction of an official proceeding” charges. Ditto for those who surrounded and banged on the doors of the Supreme Court. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was not accused of inciting an insurrection after she fired up the crowd that later stormed the Senate building and harassed U.S. senators.

Trump-hating thugs who tore up the nation’s capital during his 2017 inauguration also did not face extra charges for “obstruction of an official proceeding.” In fact, nearly all of the charges eventually were dropped by the same U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. now overseeing the Capitol riot investigation.

The burden of proof, to the extent it matters in the hyperpartisan Beltway justice system, is high. Nonetheless, it appears the Justice Department is having trouble building its cases, including “obstruction of an official proceeding” charges.

Last week, the government asked for permission to violate the Speedy Trial Act and grant a 60 day continuance in its case against nine defendants, alleged members of the Oath Keepers, all charged with obstructing an official proceeding among other offenses. The lawyers insist they need more time to assemble all the evidence. “[T]he ends of justice served by granting a request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.”

The judge agreed.

Convicting any of the Capitol defendants on charges of obstructing an official proceeding will cross a dangerous line—a line government prosecutors and federal judges clearly feel undeterred to cross. This isn’t about justice, it’s about partisan retribution and revenge. And the consequences will be disastrous.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

CCP Adviser Outlined Detailed Plan to Defeat US, Including Manipulating Elections
March 26, 2021 10:40, Last Updated: March 26, 2021 16:03
By Nicole Hao

A leading Chinese professor—who is also an adviser to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—laid out a comprehensive plan for the communist regime to overthrow the United States as the world’s superpower.

The professor’s multi-pronged strategy involves a range of malign actions to subvert the United States while strengthening the Chinese regime. They include: interfering in U.S. elections, controlling the American market, cultivating global enemies to challenge the United States, stealing American technology, expanding Chinese territory, and influencing international organizations.

The plan was explained in detail by Jin Canrong, a professor and associate dean of the School of International Studies at Beijing’s Renmin University of China, in a July 2016 speech on “Sino-U.S. Strategic Philosophy” given over two full days at Southern Club Hotel Business Class in south China’s Guangzhou City.

“We want to be the world leader,” Jin said, explaining Chinese Leader Xi Jinping’s desire for a “national rejuvenation” of the country.

Dubbed “teacher of the state” by Chinese netizens, Jin is a prominent scholar known for his fiery anti-U.S. rhetoric. He is an advisor to two powerful bodies of the CCP, the Organization Department, and the United Front Work Department, though it is unclear how close he is to Xi.

The title screen of a propaganda program called “How Xi Jinping Led China’s COVID-19 Battle,” from the CGTN archive is seen as it plays on a computer monitor in London, England on Feb. 04, 2021. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

Weakening the United States

The strategy to topple the United States was composed of two broad components: weakening America through both internal and foreign sources; and strengthening the Chinese regime’s economic, military, and diplomatic power.

Using a metaphor of a company to illustrate the U.S.-China dynamic, Jin likened the United States to a company president, and China to a vice president who wants the top job.

“The United States is a middle-aged man, who is good looking, has strong capabilities, and support from most employees,” Jin said.

“[To replace it], we first need to create the conditions to make it easier for the United States to make mistakes. Second, we should make it as busy as possible [dealing with problems], to the extent that it will feel depressed and want to give up. Third, we should become intertwined with the United States, so that it can’t attack us.”

Jin said the CCP was thinking of many ways to weaken the United States, which he described as a “very difficult” task. The professor offered four practical tactics.

1. Manipulating Elections

Jin suggested that the CCP should interfere in U.S. elections to bring pro-Beijing candidates to power. He singled out races for seats in the House of Representatives as an easy target.

“The Chinese government wants to arrange Chinese investments in every single congressional district to control thousands of voters in each district,” Jin said.

He noted with a population (at the time) of about 312 million and 435 congressional districts, roughly 750,000 residents live in each district.

“The voting rate in the United States is about 30 percent, which means around 200,000 residents in each congressional district vote for the representative in that district,” Jin said.

“Normally the difference of votes between two candidates is 10,000 or less. If China has thousands of votes on hand, China will be the boss of the candidates.”

Jin said China’s ambition is to control at least the House.

“The best scenario is China can buy the United States, and change the U.S. House of Representatives into the second Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress,” he said, referring to the committee that oversees the CCP’s rubber-stamp legislature.

2. Controlling the US Market

A container ship berthing at the port in Qingdao, in China’s eastern Shandong province on May 17, 2019. (STR/AFP/Getty Images)

Ramping up Chinese investments in the United States is another way to exert influence in the country’s political system, Jin said, noting that this tactic has the added benefit of enriching Chinese business people and the CCP.

“The investment opportunities in the United States are relatively good,” he said. “The U.S. market is open—more open than the Japanese and European ones,” he continued, adding that its benefits include its size, transparency, and stability.

He said the Chinese regime wants Chinese business people to control the U.S. market, and also for them to develop their businesses in the country.

To reach this goal, the Chinese regime had tried to negotiate with Washington for the U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The agreement was actively negotiated for the decade prior to 2017, but fell off the agenda during President Donald Trump’s administration.

Some U.S. companies wishing to enter the Chinese market, and the U.S.-China Business Council have advocated for the signing of a BIT.

3. Fostering Enemies of the US

Intercontinental ballistic missiles are launched by the Vladimir Monomakh nuclear submarine of the Russian navy from the Sera of Okhotsk, Russia, on Dec. 12, 2020. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)

Jin said the CCP’s “strategic task” was to make sure the United States has not less than four enemies.

Four enemies are needed to stretch the United States’ resources while bogging the government down in domestic debates over which threat to prioritize, Jin said.

For instance, before WWII the United States had two adversaries, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. “The Americans debated over and over about who is the real threat,” he said.

“If the United States has four enemies, it will totally lose its direction.”

Analyzing the situation as of 2016, Jin concluded that the United States only has three adversaries: “Terrorism is definitely an enemy of the United States. Russia looks like another one … Definitely, the United States treats us as a competitor … It’s not enough.”

The professor said that in the past few years, the CCP had tried to develop Brazil into an adversary of the United States, but was unsuccessful because Brazil “didn’t want to be improved.”

He said the CCP had pumped a lot of investment into Brazil in the bid to get its support on global issues, including taking stances against the United States. Xi had visited Brazil in 2014 and agreed to invest in infrastructure in the country’s western region, as well as a railway to link ports in Brazil and Peru.

Jin said the Chinese regime has given up on this approach and is trying to find a candidate to develop into a U.S. adversary.

4. Causing International Problems for the US

Jin said the Chinese regime was at a strategic advantage due to the United States’ role as global enforcer: whenever there is a crisis in the world, the United States would have to intervene to maintain global stability, which in turn drains U.S. resources and diverts its attention away from China.

As examples, he cited the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which he described as “completely not strategically valuable” endeavors that cost the United States “$6 trillion and 10,000 soldiers’ lives.”

The result was that the United States “wasted ten years [without being aware of China’s development], and let China grow big,” Jin said.

Another possible tactic is to sell the CCP’s holding of U.S. Treasury bonds to precipitate a debt crisis, he said. According to the U.S. Treasury, China currently holds nearly $1.1 trillion in U.S. treasury securities.

Finally, engaging in drawn-out negotiations with the United States is also an effective strategy to bog down the United States, while giving the regime the time to focus on developing itself, according to Jin. During such negotiations, the United States wouldn’t take punitive actions against the CCP such as sanctions, and instead focus its energy on preparing and carrying out the talks. Meanwhile, the Chinese regime, which has no intention of negotiating in good faith, would use the breathing space given to it over the course of the negotiations to solidify its power both inside and outside of China.

Former deputy national security advisor Matthew Pottinger in February warned of the CCP’s “negotiation traps.” Pottinger said years of successive formal dialogues between the two sides, such as the “Strategic Economic Dialogue” allowed the regime to “draw out the clock” and continue its economic assaults on the United States with impunity.

Strengthening the Chinese Regime

China’s first self-developed large passenger jetliner C919 is presented after it rolled off the production line at Shanghai Aircraft Manufacturing Co. in Shanghai, China on November 2, 2015. (VCG/VCG via Getty Images)

Jin said the Chinese regime has greatly relied on the U.S. trade and investments to spur its economic development over the past four decades. He highlighted four approaches to expand the CCP’s economic and political power at home and abroad.

1. Stealing US Technology

The professor admitted that the CCP has depended on stolen American technology to fuel its growth.

“China’s industry has a large output, but lacks certain technology,” Jin said. “In the past 30 years, we bought technology, 46 percent of which were from Germany. But the United States has the best technology, but it doesn’t sell to us.”

He added, “Americans think that Chinese hackers steal a lot of their things. This may very well be true.” Jin said key technology for China’s J-20 fighter jet and DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile was stolen from the United States.

The regime is also eager to get its hands on American space technology.

In June 2016, China’s Long March 7 rocket sent an orbital debris clean-up satellite Aolong-1 to space. Beijing claimed that Aolong-1 only brought space debris back to earth, but Jin suggested the satellite had another mission.

“The U.S. said that [Aolong-1] was collecting American satellites [from the space], and bringing them back to China,” Jin said. “We can disassemble [the American] satellites and reassemble them into Chinese ones.”

2. Expanding the Regime’s Territory

Jin believed that the Chinese regime would occupy the whole of the South China Sea and Taiwan in the near future.

The CCP lays claim to almost all of the South China Sea despite a 2016 ruling by an international court finding that its territorial claims were unlawful. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan also have competing claims in the waterways. Home to rich fishing grounds and potentially valuable natural resources, the South China Sea is also one of the world’s major shipping routes.



One of China’s man-made islands in the South China Sea, May 21, 2015. (U.S. Navy/Handout via Reuters)

Beijing has sought to bolster its claims in the strategic waterways by building artificial islands in the area and building military outposts on them.

“In one and half years [in 2013 and 2014 under Xi’s administration], China has created more than 3,200 acres of territory. The other four claimant states have created only 100 acres in 45 years,” Jin said.

Jin predicted that the CCP would continue to create more features in the South China Sea.

He also boasted about the regime’s success in wresting control of the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines in 2012 with the help of Chinese fishing boats and coast guard vessels.

“Even if the Philippines wants the United States to take over the reefs [in the South China Sea], the United States can’t guard them,” Jin said. “If the United States stations an aircraft carrier there, China can simply send 2,000 fishing boats and surround the carrier. Then the carrier doesn’t dare to fire at the fishing boats.”

In relation to Taiwan, the CCP has more ways to bring the democratic island under its control, Jin said. The regime views the self-ruled island as part of its territory and has vowed to bring Taiwan under its fold with force if necessary. For instance, the regime could bribe Taiwanese politicians, ban trade and tourism from China, convince the few remaining countries that recognize Taiwan diplomatically to switch to China, blocking Taiwan’s participation in international organizations and meetings, and assassinating some Taiwanese to instill fear among the population.

3. Building Global Influence By Leading Projects

Xi’s global strategy to bolster the regime’s global power has two pillars, according to Jin. One is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the other is the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP).

BRI, previously known as One Belt One Road, is a massive global investment strategy launched by the CCP in 2013 aimed at bolstering its economic and political influence across Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America. The project involves investments in infrastructure and natural resource projects in countries. It has been criticized by the United States and other countries as an example of “debt trap” diplomacy, that saddles developing countries with unsustainable debt burdens while allowing the regime to export its technology and governance abroad.

“The ultimate purpose of BRI is to team up with the industrial power Germany. Then there’s no position of the United States in the world’s industrial playing field,” Jin said.

Similarly, Jin said the FTAAP, a proposed free trade agreement between 21 Asian-Pacific countries, would also open a conduit of influence for the CCP in the region.

The professor also believed that Chinese-backed development banks, the New Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, would work to Beijing’s advantage, as countries that received loans from the banks would then be beholden to the regime, Jin said.

“We are building up our friend’s circle in the world. We will be more powerful than the United States with more friends,” he said. “Then we can tell the United States that we are the only representative of the world.”

4. Influencing International Organizations

Jin also explained the CCP’s plan to exert greater influence over global bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, Interpol, the International Monetary Fund, the International Olympic Committee, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The Chinese regime’s goal is for “all these international organizations to be controlled by China. We can appoint someone who speaks Chinese [who represents China] to be its leaders,” Jin said.


Chinese candidate to head the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Qu Dongyu addresses FAO members and delegates during the plenary assembly for the election of the new FAO Director-General held at the FAO headquarters, in Rome on June 22, 2019. (Vincenzo Pinto/ AFP via Getty Images)

During his speech, Jin emphasized that Xi was unlike his predecessors in his ambitions. Previous CCP leaders, such as Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao worked hard to develop the regime’s power but didn’t dare to use it, he said.

“No matter how much power you have, it’s nothing if you don’t dare to use it,” Jin said.

“Chairman Xi dares to use it. [Xi’s authorities] have the power, dare to use that power, and all of its attacks make the other party bleed.”

Xi’s ambitions, however, cannot be revealed to the outside world, the professor said.

When Xi took power in 2012, he urged the country to realize the “Chinese dream.” This meant becoming a “moderately well-off” country by 2021, and then a “strong, democratic, civilized, harmonious, and modern socialist country” by 2049.

Jin explained that Xi’s target is actually to replace the United States as the world’s only superpower by 2049.

“[Chinese] Ministry of Foreign Affairs keeps on saying [at press briefings] that China loves peace. But no reporters at the press briefings believe this,” Jin said.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Where is GOP Outrage Over Justice Department’s Capitol Probe?

The U.S. government now holds political prisoners in jail in the nation’s capital, and the party that purports to stand for freedom, liberty, and rule of law refuses to defend them.
By Julie Kelly
ag-mark_90833ec2.svg

March 25, 2021

A federal judge this week blasted a top Justice Department official for publicly bragging about the agency’s sprawling investigation into the January 6 Capitol melee. In an emergency hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta warned government prosecutors to keep quiet or face a gag order.

Mehta fumed over comments made in a television interview by former acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin—he led the first two months of the nationwide manhunt for suspected “insurrectionists”—that could imperil the already shaky case against ten alleged members of the Oath Keepers. The lawyers of the defendants facing several charges including conspiracy, attended the virtual hearing on Tuesday.

“The Justice Department needs to understand that these types of public statements can jeopardize the integrity of a criminal case and affect the rights of the defendants,” Mehta said. (Sherwin reportedly is under internal investigation himself for giving the “60 Minutes” interview last week.) “No matter how much press attention this matter gets, it will be clear these defendants are entitled to a fair trial. The government, quite frankly in my view, should know better.”

The Obama-appointed judge, with those few sentences, said more to defend the rights of Trump-supporting protesters than the totality of Republican leadership in Washington, D.C.. Top Biden officials are accelerating the weaponization of powerful federal agencies against regular Americans who dared, not just to vote for Donald Trump, but also to doubt the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. The Justice Department’s Capitol breach probe, its official name, gives cover to inflict severe punishment for those verboten acts and beliefs.

The same cabal that wielded its authority against the former president and his associates for more than four years has aimed its arsenal at hundreds of Trump supporters—yet the GOP remains silent.

Crickets from Congressional Republicans
Early on, Republicans joined Democrats in overhyping the events of January 6. “This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) preached in a statement released that evening. “They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed. They failed to attempt to obstruct the Congress.”

Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), in a typically dramatic speech the next day, claimed the Capitol “has been desecrated. Blood has been spilled in the hallways.” (He also warned we should not tell our children that American institutions “can’t be trusted,” despite all evidence to the contrary.)

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) insisted “those who made this attack on our government need to be identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Well, Graham got his wish. And then some.

A handful of protestors, some who showed up with the sole intent of causing trouble, undoubtedly committed crimes including vandalism, assault on police officers, and theft of private and government property. Lawmakers were forced into hiding for fear of being attacked. Entering someone’s office uninvited, even in a government building, is a no-no. Those people face severe penalties, and should.

But many Americans—more than 300 have been arrested so far with promises of more to come—face spurious accusations that are destroying their lives.

Take, for example, the case of Jessica Watkins. The Ohio bar owner was arrested January 18 and initially charged with three counts related to her involvement in the Capitol breach.

She is one of the nearly 100 Americans that Michael Sherwin’s office detained prior to Inauguration Day in a display of what he called “shock and awe” to deter people from protesting Biden’s swearing-in ceremony on January 20. “It worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because…if we go there, we’re gonna get charged,” Sherwin boasted in his “60 Minutes” interview.

Watkins, a U.S. Army veteran who served in Afghanistan, has been behind bars ever since. As a member of the Oath Keepers, Watkins is one of ten people accused of concocting a “conspiracy” to halt the certification of the Electoral College, a task completed about 13 hours after the siege began on January 6. As I reported here, no Oath Keeper has been charged with a violent crime; none of them is charged with assaulting an officer or vandalizing the building or destroying property.

Watkins’ life, however, is ruined. Federal prosecutors are fighting her request to be released from jail pending trial, and Judge Mehta just granted a 60-day continuance based on the “complexity” of the investigation. (Mehta, despite his judicious comments this week, is no hero in his handling of most Capitol breach cases.)

In a filing this week, prosecutors warned Watkins poses a danger to society since she allegedly holds “extremist and violent views regarding how to address what she believed to be a fraudulent election.”

Further, the government argued, Watkins also is a threat because the government successfully destroyed her business and her way of life, which prosecutors mocked. “[T]he dangerous nature and circumstances of the offense itself…remain acute concerns in a new world without her cherished firearms, her professional livelihood (the Jolly Roger bar), her personal hobby (leader of the Ohio Regulars militia), and that is now governed by a regime that she actually used violence against in order to preserve something as fundamental as her way of life.”

So, to summarize: The most powerful law enforcement agency in the world rounded up nonviolent veterans to intimidate other Americans planning to protest Joe Biden’s inauguration then held those Americans in jail for months, subsequently destroying their lives then used the fact the federal government destroyed these people’s lives as evidence they are a threat to society. Oh, and delayed the trial due to case overload the government itself created.

Outrageous.

Death of a Party Summarized
But where is the outrage from Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C.? Due process has been tossed; the disparity between how January 6 defendants are treated versus the treatment of “peaceful protestors” last summer is on full display. (The same U.S. attorney’s office now prosecuting Capitol breach defendants dropped nearly all felony rioting charges after the George Floyd protests over the summer.)

Trump-supporting Americans, including a teenager, have been denied bail partially based on their beliefs that the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate. Dozens have been transported to D.C. jail to await trial in a hyper-partisan judicial system that views them with utter contempt.

Veterans, gun owners, and homeschoolers are openly derided in court.

Nearly 130 Americans face a flimsy charge of “obstruction of an official proceeding” for attempting to delay Congress’ certification of the Electoral College—an act, by the way, attempted by members of Congress themselves in 2016—which seeks to criminalize political protest and sets a dangerous precedent. The obstruction charge, despite its vague legal definition, is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.


Weapons such as bear spray or riot shields, which are not legally considered “deadly or dangerous” when used by antifa, suddenly fit that category for January 6 protestors even if they never used them. Misdemeanors such as trespassing or disorderly conduct will be used to build sedition cases against American citizens. Meanwhile, lies about the way a Capitol police officer died and the narrative of an “armed insurrection” remain ingrained in the public record.

The Justice Department’s prosecutions, even as some cases fall apart, are fueling similar actions by other powerful agencies. The Director of National Intelligence described Capitol protestors as “domestic violent extremists” and the Homeland Security department is considering a “no fly list” for anyone involved in the January 6 “attack.”

These Stasi-like tactics should not be permitted in America.But Republicans are endorsing this with their confirmation of both Attorney General Merrick Garland and his number two, Lisa Monaco.

The U.S. government now holds political prisoners in jail in the nation’s capital, and the party that purports to stand for freedom, liberty, and rule of law refuses to defend them.
It’s not just a sign of a cowardly, weak party—it’s the sign of a dead one.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Mike Lindell Releasing Second Documentary Proving China Election Interference 11:27 min

Rumble video — Mike Lindell talks about his second Documentary coming out that will expose foreign election interference.

Absolute Interference
will be released late next week

lindelltv.com

__________________________________________

Mike Lindell: Dominion Whistleblowers Have Come to Him Exposing Fraud 7:46 min
Rumble video — Mike Lindell tells the War Room key parts and witnesses he has to take down Dominion. [COMMENT: He will dump evidence daily for 6 weeks.]

____________________________

8:33 min
Rumble video— Mike Lindell joins the War Room to talk about the case his lawyers can bring to overturn the November 3rd Election.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Laura Ingraham Cuts Off President Trump – Discounts Democrat Election Crimes – Shames President for Not Having a Better Legal Strategy – For Cases Supreme Court Wouldn’t Hear

By Joe Hoft
Published March 26, 2021 at 5:00pm
Laura-Ingraham-Disgrace.jpg

Laura Ingraham occasionally caught way off base – last night was one of those nights.


Laura is personable, witty, attractive, and intelligent. She has good connections and has been in the Washington swamp for a long time. Laura is conservative and has her own highly successful show on FOX News. But she will never be number one.

We saw glimpses of greatness at various times. She was excellent early on in the coronavirus crisis when she was able to cut through the garbage and dig at the truth. She understood earlier than others that the China coronavirus was not as bad as was being paraded on other cable news networks.

But at other times, Laura is lost. She gave up on President Trump as soon as the 2020 election was stolen by the Biden gang. She either didn’t have the courage to stand up to FOX executives or she didn’t have the wits to see what was happening. But within hours Laura was already moving on with the corrupt Biden gang. Because of this, her viewership is half what it was.

In her interview with the President last night, she rudely cut off the President of the United States when he tried to share the facts about the 2020 election being stolen.

President Trump shared the following:
And what they did was absolutely disgraceful and if you look at the numbers, the numbers were vastly in favor of us in the Presidential election. It was disgraceful that they were able to get away with it and the Supreme Court didn’t have the courage to do what they had to do.
To which Laura rudely interrupts and says:
Yeah, well speaking as a, speaking as a lawyer, we’re not going to relitigate the past tonight. But speaking as a lawyer I think that going forward, I think any candidate running for office has to have a heck of a legal strategy in place before, like long before the election takes place.
That was it. What an absolute outrage. Ingraham sides with FOX News executives. She blames the President for the Democrats stealing the election. She ignores and shuts down the President. She claims a better legal strategy will prevent massive Democrat fraud – when the courts refuse to hear the President’s cases?

What garbage and how terribly rude.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1375273231410663425
.47 min

Laura Ingraham struck out again.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
Rumble video— Mike Lindell joins the War Room to talk about the case his lawyers can bring to overturn the November 3rd Election.
I heard the video tonight - Lindell is effervescent and voluble on his new findings which include a "reveal" and proof on Internet Connection for the Dominion Machines - a claim denied by Dominion. Lindell is saying China was intimately involved "real time" in the machines with Dominion concurrence and ISPs have been tracked back to Mainland China.

Some numbers were quoted on "actual Trump win margins."

He also said "a good chance this Trump election will be "turned." Lindell even said Trump may be back in the White House by August. Bannon tested him on this thought "Your thought or your lawyers?" "My thought" Lindell's reply, although Lindell quoted the lawyers directly "It will all be out in the open by August"

Methinks Lindell optimistic human. No word on his 1.3B lawsuit. Several other lawsuit threats HAVE been dismissed in court.

Dobbin
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

VIDEO ANALYSIS: Georgia Voter Integrity Bill Is HUGE WIN for Rule of Law and Monstrous Blow to Democrat Election Fraud

By Jim Hoft
Published March 26, 2021 at 7:50p

The Georgia Senate passed legislation in February requiring an ID with absentee voting.
The bill passed 35-18 and is a huge win for election integrity in the red state that saw their votes stolen in the 2020 election.

John Fredericks broke this news at the time on The War Room with Steve Bannon.

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.

On Friday radio host John Fredericks went back on The War Room to discuss the bill that was signed into law on Thursday. Fredericks says the law is “not perfect” but is a good start.

bannon-fredericks.jpg

Via The War Room:
Fredericks praised “courageous” Republicans for getting the bill through, which requires voter ID in order to vote absentee and eliminates signature matching, two areas prone to fraud in the Nov. 3 election.
“It’s not perfect,” Fredericks said. “We didn’t get everything we wanted.
“But if this bill had passed in 2019, would the outcome of the 2020 election in Georgia be different?” Fredericks

“Not even close,” said Stephen K. Bannon. “Donald Trump would be in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. And two senators in there.”
“Trump would have won big,” said Fredericks.
There’s a reason that Democrats are howling over this bill.

It makes it harder to cheat.


Rumble video on website 8:45 min
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
The only problem with the Georgia Bill (as pointed out by Bannon or his guest) is that it doesn't dump the Dominion Machines. But that can be solved later.

As Bannon says "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the acceptable."

Dobbin
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Michigan GOP Could Pass Election Integrity Laws Without Dem Governor’s Approval

By ProTrumpNews Staff
Published March 27, 2021 at 10:10am
Gretchen-Whitmer-600x415.jpg


The Michigan GOP is going to be able to make changes to Michigan’s election integrity laws without needing approval from Michigan’s Dem Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Fox News reported:
Michigan Republicans this week proposed changes to state voting laws and have come up with a veto-proof way to circumvent Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, according to reports.
The 39 bills proposed in the GOP-led Legislature this week would require identification for new voters, prohibit prepaid absentee envelopes, limit the number of absentee dropboxes and bar the secretary of state from sending an absentee ballot unless requested, according to Bridge Michigan.

“If that legislation is not passed by our Legislature, which I am sure it will be, but if it’s not signed by the governor, then we have other plans to make sure that it becomes law before 2022,” Ron Weiser, chairman of Michigan’s GOP, said in a video on social media, according to The Detroit News.
This is much needed.

Michigan’s 2020 election was a complete disaster.

The Gateway Pundit has previously reported on this:

Finally, the GOP is standing up to Democrats’ attempts to steal elections!
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger Defends State’s Election Integrity Law

Scott Olson/Getty Images
HANNAH BLEAU27 Mar 2021192

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) defended the state’s election reform law in a pointed statement on Friday, accusing Democrats and their counterparts in the establishment media of repeating “partisan talking points” by proclaiming the measure restricts access to voting, deeming the narratives “lazy, biased, and political as they are demonstrably wrong.”

Several Democrats have categorized Georgia’s election integrity law, which Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed on Thursday, as a form of voter suppression. President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have all, in the past week, compared state election integrity efforts to the era of Jim Crow.

“The cries of ‘voter suppression’ from those on the left ring as hollow as the continuously debunked claims of ‘mass voter fraud’ in Georgia’s 2020 election,” Raffensperger said in reaction to the steady stream of critiques.

“We don’t have systemic voter suppression, and we don’t have mass voter fraud. What we have is systemic lies for political gain that have led to a loss of public confidence in our elections,” he continued in the statement emailed to reporters.

A press release detailing Raffensperger’s statement specifically cited a New York Times report that “wrongly” reported the Peach State “passed a sweeping law to restrict voting access in the state.”

“CNN is breathlessly reporting on Georgia’s ‘new law suppressing voting access.’ Stacey Abrams is no doubt fund-raising off her absurd – and offensive – suggestion that this law is ‘Jim Crow 2.0,'” it continued.

“These narratives are as lazy, biased and political as they are demonstrably wrong,” Raffensperger said, addressing some of their specific arguments against basic election integrity measures, such as voter ID:
There’s no rational argument against requiring state ID – provided for free to those who don’t have a driver’s license – for absentee ballots. I implemented our first version of that last year; every absentee ballot request that came in through the state website was cross-referenced with the driver’s license database and other records.
This also requires counties to offer more weekend voting and puts drop boxes into law for the first time – the State Board of Elections adopted them as an emergency measure last year in response to the pandemic. Absentee ballot drop boxes would have gone away without direct action by the General Assembly.
The left said that photo ID for in-person voting would suppress votes. It didn’t. Registration and turnout soared, hitting new records with each election cycle. Their cataclysmic predictions about the effects of this law are simply baseless. The next election will prove that, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for the left and the media to admit they were wrong.
Raffensperger identified himself as a conservative Republican but added he has made it abundantly clear he is willing to “take a political hit to treat everyone equally under the law and stand up for the rights of all Georgians” — a likely reference to controversies surrounding the highly contested 2020 presidential election.

“The national media loved what I was saying when it differed from the views of President Trump. I hope they’re as interested in my point of view now that it differs with Stacey Abrams,” he added.

Leftist groups filed a lawsuit following Kemp’s signing the bill into law, asserting the measure will make it “harder for lawful Georgia voters to participate in the State’s elections.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Hollywood Celebrities Melt Down over Georgia’s Election Integrity Law: Racist, ‘Straight Up’ Evil
14,820
Tristan Fewings; Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images
Tristan Fewings; Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images
DAVID NG26 Mar 20217,316

Hollywood celebrities are expressing their rage over Georgia’s sweeping new voter integrity law, which implements voter identification requirements and limits ballot drop boxes. Left-wing stars — the vast majority of whom don’t live in Georgia — are condemning the law as racist, “straight up” evil, and a form of “voter suppression.”

On Thursday, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed into law Senate Bill 202, which passed along party lines by the state’s General Assembly. The legislation gives the Georgia State Elections Board the ability to take over county election boards in areas that may require oversight.

It also removes Georgia’s Secretary of State from chair of the State Elections Board.

Stars including Edward Norton, Susan Sarandon, Rosanna Arquette, Padma Lakshmi, and Billy Eichner are voicing their anger over the bill’s passage.

Edward Norton called Georgia Republican leaders “racists” for signing the bill into law. The People vs. Larry Flynt actor also retweeted the Lincoln Project, the anti-Trump Republican group mired in a sexual misconduct scandal involving young men.
These guys also played down Covid and mocked wearing masks. So I’m thinking maybe they are wearing them here because they know it’s better to hide their faces from the historical record, which will document them as the racists they are. https://t.co/JsT6meXvdA
— Edward Norton (@EdwardNorton) March 26, 2021
Susan Sarandon tweeted a meme associating Georgia GOP leaders with “white supremacy.”
pic.twitter.com/6zhhyhDjUV
— Susan Sarandon (@SusanSarandon) March 26, 2021
Rob Reiner appeared to imply that the new law is intended to prevent people from voting. “The Republicans stand for nothing,” he tweeted.
The Republicans stand for nothing. They know the only way they can win is to keep us from voting. We will not let them. Kill the filibuster to protect the vote. The survival of Democracy depends on it.
— Rob Reiner (@robreiner) March 26, 2021
Pulp Fiction star Rosanna Arquette called Gov. Kemp a racist and a KKK member.
#BrianKKKempIsRacist
— ✌rosanna arquette (@RoArquette) March 26, 2021
Comedian-actor Billy Eichner declared the new law “makes me sick,” while calling Republicans “racist” and “vile.”
This makes me sick. Desperate, vile, RACIST, weak Republicans. https://t.co/3txoQr1QEv
— billy eichner (@billyeichner) March 25, 2021
Alyssa Milano signaled her intention to violate the new law’s provision against providing food and beverages to voters waiting in line.
I’m in. LFG!
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) March 26, 2021
Bravo’s Top Chef host Padma Lakshmi called the law a “desperate attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters.”

1616876195392.png

Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure star Alex Winter called the law “straight up” evil.

1616876141380.png

Actor Michael Kelly, who hails from Georgia, called the law “blatant” voter suppression.”

1616876102103.png
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Federal Prosecutors Abandon False Claims Regarding Jan. 6 Capitol Riot Due to No Evidence
Shane Trejo
Mar 26, 2021

1616879127573.png

Federal prosecutors are being forced to drop some of the most absurd, histrionic claims they made about the mostly-peaceful protest that happened in and around the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

The deep state has spun yarns about elaborate plots to kill lawmakers, gas politicians, overthrow the government, and made up other tall tales in their quest to punish Trump supporters and bring the war on terror into the homeland. Now, they are being forced to backtrack as the case blows up in their faces.

No counts for sedition have been filed against any of those charged thus far. Assault, conspiracy and obstruction charges are the best the feds can come up with, and many of the peaceful protesters inside of the U.S. Capitol may ultimately have their charges dropped – leaving the deep state with egg on their faces yet again.

“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, a criminal defense attorney with a long history of representing controversial figures.

Big League Politics has reported on how a federal prosecutor was scolded by a judge for engaging in incredibly unprofessional behavior by discussing the ongoing cases during an appearance on CBS’ 60 Minutes:

Federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin may have compromised the conspiracy case he has been preparing against Jan. 6 demonstrators in the U.S. Capitol by appearing on CBS News’ 60 Minutes on Sunday night.

Sherwin boasted on 60 Minutes about how he was charging Trump supporters as quickly as humanly possible regardless of the evidence in order to make a “shock and awe” display to quash their 1st Amendment rights.

Judge Amit Mehta is incredibly unhappy with Sherwin’s activity, which he believes is egregious and highly unprofessional. Mehta stated he will not hesitate to slap a gag order on Sherwin in the future if such breaches continue. Sherwin has reportedly been referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility for potential disciplinary action…

The deep state may be overreaching in their attempt to paint Jan. 6 as a seditious conspiracy when it was rather obviously a spontaneous mostly-peaceful protest against entrenched political corruption in the federal swamp
.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Is Populism Going to Fritter Away Over Time as George W. Bush Predicts?
Neil  Patel
Neil Patel

|
Posted: Mar 26, 2021 12:01 AM

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

Is Populism Going to Fritter Away Over Time as George W. Bush Predicts?

Source: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Last week, former President George W. Bush said he's not worried about the current moment in American politics because "these populist movements begin to fritter over time." I don't know Bush well personally, but I served in his administration for eight years. As a senior staffer to Vice President Dick Cheney, I was in numerous meetings with Bush each week. While I did not agree with the president on every policy issue, I did leave my service with a feeling that, agree with him or not, Bush is a good person who cares a lot about our country.

That's why his statement is so frustrating.

The country is going through profound changes and political difficulties, to say the least. Populist sentiments started way back with the Tea Party movement on the right in 2009 and the Occupy Wall Street movement on the left in 2011. You could even argue that the first signs surfaced with the Ross Perot presidential candidacy in 1992. The populist movement has been building for many years, and it shows little sign of slowing down. The majority of voters on the Republican side are Trump populists, and all the energy in current Democratic politics is with the socialist wing led by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Populism is, of course, less of a political ideology than it is a sign people are unhappy with American leadership. The approval and trust levels for elected leaders and leading institutions have been in free-fall for years. On the left and on the right, there is a growing belief that society's riches are flowing too heavily to a privileged and well-connected few and not enough to the average American. On the left, there is a strong desire to redistribute more wealth through huge tax changes. On the right, the focus is on issues such as immigration, trade and globalization.

If you are an American leader during this time of unrest, you have a couple of options to choose from. First, think deeply about why people are upset and whether our system could use any fundamental reforms. Second, if you conclude things are fine without reforms, work as hard as possible to convince people why things are OK and/or how change could make things worse. In these scenarios, the unrest we are seeing could cause Americans to come together in a constructive way. The best historic example of constructive populism may be when anti-tax populist sentiments rose in Boston in the late 1700s. Enlightened and engaged leaders were able to harness the populist energy toward positive outcomes: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the formation of the country we now love.

In the worst-case scenario, our leaders can ignore the warning signs and hope things just fritter away. That's the scenario we are in, unfortunately. Populism can definitely turn ugly. We have seen some of that already. And historically, ignoring the concerns of regular people led to almost 100 years of repressive communist rule in Russia and the development of a Nazi state in Germany that didn't end until millions were killed in a world war.

Our leaders aren't ignoring all of today's warnings because they are bad people; they do it because our society has become so segregated that people who are thriving are surrounded almost exclusively by others who are also thriving. This segregation facilitates worldviews that can grow detached from reality.

Washington's business is corporate influence, just as New York's dominant industry is finance and Los Angeles' is entertainment. Huge, multinational companies open offices in Washington with the express purpose of shaping the policy agenda. They fund the trade associations; they employ the lobby shops and public relations firms; and their advertising dollars drive the news publications that dominate our capital. An outright majority of departing members of Congress now go to work in this booming multibillion-dollar influence industry. The result is a corporate culture in Washington closely attuned to a big-business worldview, representing those who are thriving in our current system and increasingly out of touch with anything else.

Due to our extreme segregation in America, Bush and our other national leaders do not engage much on policy matters, except in highly controlled, corporate-dominated environments. The debates at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, or the once counterculture and now corporate-culture South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas, do not reflect the concerns of regular Americans. These events reflect the concerns of the huge corporations that pay millions to sponsor them.

We still have an amazing country with a lot of wealth and a lot of peace by historical standards. Changes to fundamental policies such as taxes, immigration, trade or foreign policy can cause harm. But continuing to ignore the cries for change and hope the problems just fritter away is not the answer. On the contrary, such a strategy increases the chances that our current unrest leads to harmful outcomes. For our country to move in a constructive direction, our leaders need to break out of their bubbles and step up like many before them have done.

Most of our leaders care about our country. I know from years of close contact with George W. Bush that he certainly does. But these leaders are living in a world that is not reflective of America as a whole. The same voters now clamoring for change once voted for Barack Obama and George Bush. They haven't turned into bad people overnight. They just don't believe our system is really working for their interests. That concern can lead to positive reform, or it can turn really ugly. It's still up to us. Either way, this isn't likely to just fritter away.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Seditious Double Standard | Mark’s Short Takes 5:08 min

Rumble — The Jan. 6 riot and breaching of the U.S. Capitol should be condemned, but why is Biden’s Justice Department arresting innocent protesters who were merely exercising their First Amendment rights that day? Where is Merrick Garland’s dragnet for the rioters who destroyed the Portland Federal Courthouse last summer? Or even the miscreants who tried to attack the White House? Will the hypocrisy of the Left never end?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Sidney Powell Telegram post

1616886688301.png
[Forwarded from Patrick M. Byrne]
[ Photo ]
Ruby Freeman's FULL confession! ⬆️ Page 92 of The Deep Rig by @PatrickMByrne links to a video which shows Ruby’s confession, but the bottom 9 lines are cut off. See her full confession above. Here's what is missing from the video:

Ruby Freeman wrote, "The ones we used are the special Joe Biden ballots that my baby created for us to win. They scanned excellent and increased Joe Biden numbers and helped him beat Donald Trump. I spoke to Dominion people and they said plan B worked all across the country. Special thanks to Stacey Abrams, Keisha Lance Bottoms, and Raphael Warnock. Don't worry Raphael you gonna beat that white bitch because we did it for you and Joe Biden better give us a pardon for it lol."

Quoted from Page 92:
In her online confession to election fraud, she expressed precisely the attitude that, I maintain, was held by enough people to make rigging a national election possible.


From The Deep Rig ebook ➡️ Patrick M. Byrne
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Senate Republicans, stewing over absentee ballot changes, roast state elections director
Tags:

Posted March 23, 2021 5:05 p.m. EDT
Updated March 26, 2021 12:13 p.m. EDT

State Board of Elections Director Karen Brinson Bell (right) answers NC Senate committee questions, March 23, 2021.

By Travis Fain, WRAL statehouse reporter

RALEIGH, N.C. — Senate Republicans told North Carolina Elections Director Karen Brinson Bell on Tuesday that she shook public confidence in elections last year when her board settled a lawsuit and changed state absentee ballot rules six weeks before the November election.

GOP lawmakers pressed Brinson Bell for more than two hours, seeking answers on that settlement. Anger from committee Republicans was evident, held in check by some, expressed more freely by others.

“Why shouldn’t we demand your resignation?" Sen. Carl Ford , R-Rowan, asked as the hearing crossed the two-hour mark.

The settlement came in September in response to lawsuits filed by Marc Elias, the Democratic Party's go-to attorney on election issues. It sought changes to account for the pandemic, and worries of a U.S. Postal Service slowdown.

The settlement was initially backed by all five State Board of Elections members – three Democrats and two Republicans – and it gave the Postal Service six extra days to deliver absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day. It also gave voters a way to mail their ballots without getting a witness signature, allowing them to attest to the ballot's authenticity themselves.

Both changes had been considered and rejected by lawmakers months before, when they passed bipartisan legislation tweaking state election rules because of the pandemic. Republican lawmakers say the settlement changed those laws without permission from the legislature, whose leaders were surprised by the settlement when it was announced.

The elections board's two Republican members resigned when GOP leaders' displeasure became clear, with at least one saying he felt duped by Attorney General Josh Stein's office, which represented the State Board of Elections in the case. The board soon released documents and closed-session minutes of settlement talks, showing robust back and forth in the run-up to the decision.

Brinson Bell maintains that state law allowed the board, which in turn appoints her, to change voting rules and that doing that isn't the same as changing the law.

"I know that we differ on this question," Brinson Bell told lawmakers Tuesday. "The state board was working within the law because they could settle a litigation matter.”
Sen. Joyce Krawiec , R-Forsyth, was one of several Republicans in disbelief.

"When you change a rule that changes a law, the law has been changed," said Krawiec. “I just find it amazing that you still believe that you didn’t change a law.”
Senate Rules Chairman Bill Rabon , R-Brunswick, chimed in near the hearing's end, saying that she went beyond changing the law to break it.

"We were totally in the dark," Rabon said, "and that’s improper.”

The settlement absolutely changed the rules for a small percentage of North Carolina voters. PolitiFact reviewed Brinson Bell's repeated assertions that the settlement didn't change state law earlier this month and rated them "mostly false."

The changes ended up affecting relatively few of the 5.5 million votes cast in North Carolina last November. According to the elections board, 2,034 mail-in ballots arrived during the six extra days provided by the settlement – 599 cast by registered Republicans and 581 by Democrats.

Nearly 8,000 voters were potentially affected by the witness signature change because voters were able to "cure" their ballots of an issue by signing a certification. The state board said the percentages of Republicans and Democrats involved here were "nearly equal."

The low numbers aren't the point, Republican lawmakers said Tuesday. And even if they were, one North Carolina race, for chief justice of the state Supreme Court, was decided by 401 votes. Republican Paul Newby beat Democrat Cheri Beasley in that race.

The settlement only extended bad blood in the state over election rules.

Republicans spent much of Gov. Roy Cooper's first term trying to wrest away partisan control of the state board and county boards of election. They passed legislation before Cooper even took office to create a new elections board structure with even appointments from Republicans and Democrats.

Before that, the boards were split 3-2, with whatever party controlled the governor's mansion in the advantage. After multiple bills and multiple lawsuits, that older system is back in place. It remains to be seen whether the Republican legislative majority will try to tinker with it again, but debates over election changes are clearly in the offing this legislative session.

Republicans filed Senate Bill 326 last week, and under it, mail-in ballots would have to be received by Election Day to count. The bill would also move up the deadline to request a mail-in ballot.

Pat Ryan, spokesman for Senate Republican leadership, said there has also been discussion of legislation addressing the settlement issue, but so far, none has been filed.

Update: This legislation, Senate Bill 360, was filed Thursday. It prohibits the state Attorney General's Office from settling lawsuits legislative leadership is party to without signoff from those leaders.

This is not just a Senate issue. House Republicans held a hearing earlier this session during which key lawmakers also pressed Brinson Bell for answers on the settlement.
On Tuesday, senators questioned her not only about the settlement, but about her politics.
Sen. Warren Daniel , R-Burke, an elections committee co-chairman, asked whether she believed trust in elections to be important, whether voters would have more trust if elections were overseen by a fully bipartisan board and about how she got her job.

Daniel also asked, more than half a dozen times, about Brinson Bell's Twitter account, which she deactivated before taking the elections director's job. The insinuation was that she made her opposition to Republicans clear on that account.

Daniel and other Republicans asked her several times whether she'd reactivate the account and release her old tweets. She said she hadn't appeared before the committee to discuss old tweets, and she didn't give a final answer.

Committee members took that as a no.

The committee also tried to nail Brinson Bell down on settlement talk details and her role in them. She said she never had "any interaction with Marc Elias," never discussed the settlement with anyone other than the state board and its attorneys, never discussed the settlement with the Governor's Office and wasn't "in discussions with any of the plaintiffs on the settlement."

She said attorneys negotiated settlement details, and she identified Swain Wood, Stein's general counsel, as the lead negotiator.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

SSID-1024x576.jpg

MARCH 21ST, 2021 | 5:02 PM | UPDATED
EMAILS: GREEN BAY’S ‘HIDDEN’ ELECTION NETWORKS
By M.D. Kittle
MADISON — A former 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 new emails obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight.

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

“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 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, the list of SSIDs will pop up. Wireless router or access points broadcast SSIDs so nearby devices can find and display any available networks.

SSID hiding keeps the network name from being publicly broadcast. The SSID won’t immediately pop up in the display, although the network name remains available for use.
“One SSID will be hidden and it’s: 2020vote. There will be no password or splash page for this one and it should only be used for the sensitive machines that need to be connected to the internet,” Jameson wrote in his Oct. 27 email to Spitzer-Rubenstein. He in turn forwarded the email to Celestine Jeffreys, Mayor Eric Genrich’s chief of staff, on Oct. 30.

Also on the email were, Amaad Rivera-Wagner, the mayor’s community liaison; Jaime Fuge, Green Bay’s chief election inspector at the time; Shelby Edlebeck, multimedia communications specialist; and Mike Hronek, the city’s Information Technology Services administrator.

“The other SSID will be: gbvote and that one can be seen in the settings app of your phone or laptop under ‘networks’ and should be used for the poll workers who need internet,” Jameson wrote.

Jameson told Spitzer-Rubenstein there would be a third SSID, which was to be used by media or other guests “not part of your team.”

Why would a guy who has been described as a consultant or adviser to the city need to have hidden SSIDs? Why would the city want him to have knowledge of Service Set Identifers for “sensitive machines”? He was brought in to provide technical support, but why would Spitzer-Rubenstein receive such sensitive information before the city’s IT director and the clerk’s office?

Genrich, Green Bay’s mayor, did not return Wisconsin Spotlight’s call seeking comment.

As Wisconsin Spotlight first reported, Spitzer-Rubenstein and his National Vote at Home Institute were heavily involved in Green Bay’s election process.

The National Vote at Home Institute, was one of several private, left-leaning groups, funded largely by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Spitzer-Rubenstein, with an impressive political resume working for Democratic politicians and campaigns, had significant influence over the administration of the presidential election in Green Bay and, it appears, in Milwaukee. The Chicago-based Center for Tech and Civic Life received hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from Zuckerberg and his wife, money they pumped out in big grants to to cities in the name of “safe elections.”

Spitzer-Rubenstein appears to have played point man for the coordinated effort between the “Wisconsin 5,” Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Kenosha and Racine — which received a combined $6.3 million in Zuckerberg money.

Emails show Spitzer-Rubenstein offered to correct or “cure” ballots in Green Bay, and he told the city’s clerk that he had come up with a similar process for Milwaukee.

And despite the city’s assertions that Spitzer-Rubenstein did not have the keys to the KI Center where the absentee ballots were, a hotel contract obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight shows the keys were to be delivered to Spitzer-Rubenstein.

“Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein will be the onsite contact for the group,” the hotel instructions state.

Emails show him inside the KI Center asking city officials about where the ballots would be located.

“Are the ballots going to be in trays/boxes within the bin? I’m at KI now, trying to figure out whether we’ll need to move the bins throughout the day or if we can just stick them along the wall and use trays or something similar to move the ballots between stations,” Spitzer-Rubenstein wrote to city officials two days before the election.

There’s much more.

Sandy Juno, former Brown County clerk who has accused the city of Green Bay of going “rogue” in its handling of the election, said she found the use of the secretive internet access points “unusual.” Spitzer-Rubenstein is shown in photos working on a laptop by a printer at central count on election night.

“I’m not sure what the need was for all of those different (Service Set) IDs, but the one that bothered me most was for the ‘sensitive machines,’ Juno said.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
https://davidharrisjr.com/steven/confirmed-democrat-operative-was-given-secret-internet-connection-to-network-where-ballots-were-counted/

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

Emails show that Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, Wisconsin state lead for the National Vote at Home Institute was not only given four of the five keys to where absentee votes were being counted in Green Bay, Wisconsin but that he was also given two internet connections at the site.

Votes can be changed and counts can be changed if tabulators are connected to the internet. Spitzer-Rubenstein is a Democratic operative and not an election official.

Wisconsin is one of the swing states that saw a huge vote dump for Joe Biden early the morning after election day. There were allegedly other suspicious happenings in the state that Biden won by a slim margin.

The Wisconsin Assembly has voted this week to authorize an investigation into the 2020 election, specifically about the actions by Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein.

It will be months before the investigation is finished and no matter what, it won’t affect the 2020 election.

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.


Here’s what the emails and Wisconsin Spotlight’s investigation found:
TRENDING TODAY
  • A former Democratic operative, Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, served as a de facto elections administrator and had access to Green Bay’s absentee ballots days before the election
  • Spitzer-Rubenstein asked Green Bay’s clerk if he and his team members could help correct or “cure” absentee ballots like they did in Milwaukee.
  • Green Bay’s clerk grew increasingly frustrated with the takeover of her department by the Democrat Mayor’s staff and outside groups.
  • Brown County Clerk Sandy Juno said the contract stipulated that Spitzer-Rubenstein would have four of the five keys to the KI Center ballroom where ballots were stored and counted.
  • Brown County’s clerk said the city of Green Bay “went rogue.”
  • Election law experts said the city illegally gave left-leaning groups authority over the election.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

SIDNEY POWELL RESPONDS TO DOMINION LAWSUIT / 2PM LC-USA 3–26-21
Home/Culture, Economy, News, Podcasts, Rights/SIDNEY POWELL RESPONDS TO DOMINION LAWSUIT / 2PM LC-USA 3–26-21
Previous Next
SIDNEY POWELL RESPONDS TO DOMINION LAWSUIT / 2PM LC-USA 3–26-21
Audio Player
https://www.timebomb2000.com/xf/javascript:void(0);
Podcast: Play in new window | Download 47:07 min
Larry Conners opens hour two of Larry Conners USA with news and commentary. He touches on Biden’s press conference, this time focusing on the reporters and their failed reporting. They constantly praised Biden before asking their questions and not once did they nail down tough, legitimate questions. Later, Sidney Powell, famed attorney, being sued by Dominion, joins Larry to provide her response to the $1.3 Billion lawsuit. In closing, another film being cancelled that will truly shock you. Do not miss today’s show!
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Like the Russia Collusion Sham, the DOJ Is Overcharging Trump Supporters with Bogus Charges

By Joe Hoft
Published March 27, 2021 at 7:30pm
doj-600x600.jpg

The Justice Department in our federal government is fully corrupt. They set up and overcharged Trump supporters in the Russia collusion scam then made a concerted effort to ignore the multitude of criminal actions in the 2020 election. TNow they are overcharging Trump supporters caught at the US Capitol on January 6th.

We’ve written about this before but every day this becomes more apparent. The Department of Justice is corrupt.
This is really frightening for any American who loves freedom and has the courage to stand up for it. Obama corrupted everything in an already inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy. Now with individuals like Merrick Garland running the show, the DOJ will only get worse.

Unfortunately, the US DOJ is more like a Banana Republic’s DOJ than of the DOJ most of us grew up with.

The latest atrocity of the DOJ (after refusing to investigate the multitude of crimes in the 2020 election) is how it set up and overcharged Trump supporters at the Capitol on January 6th.

Shipwreckedcrew at Red State wrote an excellent piece discussing the status of the cases for individuals arrested at the Capitol on January 6th. He shares:
What is beginning to happen now, as some of the January 6 protest cases are moving further into the judicial process, is that when the evidence the government’s claims about what the evidence shows is subject to greater scrutiny, the evidence fails to live up to the hype of the narrative that the government sought to establish starting back on January 7 and thereafter….
…But one issue that is percolating at this moment in several pending cases — but has not yet broken out into the public arena quite yet — is a determined and widespread tactical effort by the Department of Justice to keep the actual evidence it has in all these cases out of public view.
The government is currently attempting to strong-arm defense attorneys into agreeing to “protective orders” in connection with “discovery” in these cases. The government is attempting to coerce an agreement out of defendants that they will not include any discovery materials or reference the specifics of discovery materials in any public filings in the cases — everything would be filed under seal, and only released to the public upon an order by the court.
And one apparent crooked action done by this DOJ is as follows:
In the January 6 protest cases, the government is demanding that defense counsel agree that all materials produced in discovery related to its overall investigation be subject to a protective order, because the investigation remains ongoing and further arrests are contemplated.

The problems created by this effort are manifest, but I’m only going to mention two briefly. I’ll come back to this in the weeks ahead, as the subject shifts into the courtroom with public filings.
First, any such protective order like the one being sought would prevent defense counsel in different cases from collaborating. They would not be able to communicate with each other about the strengths or weaknesses of the government’s cases against different sets of defendants. They would not be able to discuss inconsistencies in the government’s theories as applied in different cases, nor would they be able to exchange exculpatory information, unless they developed that information themselves, separate and apart from the material provided by the government under the protective order.
Second, the inability to make public filings challenging the nature of the evidence in the government’s cases prevents the public from scrutinizing what the government is doing in its name to some individuals who have done little more than express political opposition to the party in power. Criminal cases in the U.S. Justice System are required to be open to the public, so the conduct of the government in the name of the people can be scrutinized by those same people.
To this day we are unaware of the DOJ prosecuting any Antifa members who were at the Capitol that day and yet there is ample information to show that they were there:
FBI Director Christopher Wray claims there is no evidence Antifa was involved in activities at the Capitol that day – this is not true:
We also know members of radical neo-Nazi Ukranian groups were at the Capito that day as well:
For some reason, these groups are ignored by the DOJ but Trump supporters are put through the wringer. The DOJ is corrupt. Our country will not last with people like this running our DOJ.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
SSID hiding keeps the network name from being publicly broadcast. The SSID won’t immediately pop up in the display, although the network name remains available for use.
Owners WIFI is like this. Unless the computer is filled out EXACTLY with the correct name to access, the access point won't show on the list "Network & Internet Settings" (Win 10) There is a box below it where you enter the hidden name in - and no "auto-fill" to help.

Fortunately for me where I'm limited to a stylus and are letter string challenged, the Internet connection is not lost often. Owner wrote out the WIFI name for me on a piece of paper hanging above my shelf and I can copy it.

"Try this - and see if you can read and copy."

And then one day he went and changed the WIFI name without telling me - just to see what I would do.

I followed him around the edges of the field like a magnet that makes whistling noises - two hours of that and the WIFI was changed back.

Dobbin
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

WATCH: Outrageous MSNBC Guest Says Republicans Would Deny Jesus a Cup of Water While He Died on the Cross
By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published March 28, 2021 at 1:00pm

0-232.jpg

In a wildly hyperbolic segment about Georgia’s new voter laws, an MSNBC guest claimed that Republicans would have barred Jesus from being given a cup of water while he was dying on the cross.


The shocking and vile claim came from Vanderbilt University professor and former MSNBC political analyst Michael Eric Dyson on Friday’s episode of Joy Reid’s The ReidOut.

In the lead up to the statement, Reid asked Dyson about his recent meeting with President Joe Biden, and if he’s planning to push the senate to get rid of the filibuster so that they can pass more extreme legislation from his agenda.

“I think he’s contemplating it seriously when he sees the consequences. What he needs to do is fill these busters with some fear of the government. These are the kind of people that would pass a law to keep Jesus from be — getting a cup of water while he’s dying on the cross,” Dyson said.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1375593729348796417
.28 min

Newsbusters reports that earlier in the show Dyson argued that white, male Georgia Republicans see the Voting Rights Act as “merely an inconvenient interruption of white supremacist power” and they want to ensure through their perverted “white imagination” that African Americans would lose the desire “to exercise the franchise.”
“This is Jim Crow, this is Jane Crow, this is their kids, this is the nesting of white supremacy. And if we’re trying to pretend we don’t know, this is the weaponization of conspiracy theory, and it now has come to the place where we find so reprehensible.
And I end by saying this: Brian Kemp and Raffensberger and those, that crew, you fought against, you know, Donald Trump — you wanted to get back in his good graces — so, as you pointed out paradoxically, you undermine the very ostensible legitimacy you possess to defend yourself against him now to hand him the plate.
The real religion — the real politics in America is whiteness and whiteness unhinged.”
Race grifter Reid agreed, of course.

Newsbusters noted that this episode of MSNBC’s The ReidOut was sponsored in part by Legal Zoom. Their contact is linked. “Let them know how you feel about them supporting such incendiary trash talk,” their report concluded.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

International conflict journalist Michael Yon says Antifa, BLM are ‘clearly cults’

There's a truth that one sees when being around groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, as Michael Yon has done. He was there at the January 6th Capitol Riots. He has seen different groups of similar intent all across the nation. And there's one thing they have in common. They're all cults.
by JD Rucker

March 28, 2021

International conflict journalist Michael Yon says Antifa, BLM are 'clearly cults'

You won’t hear too many people talk about “conflict journalists.” We’ve heard terms “war correspondents” and “embedded journalists,” but a “conflict journalist” is different. They aren’t just riding around in Humvees like most war correspondents. They’re not just going to hotspots around the world mingling with criminal and often terrorist organizations. They’re doing it all, and Michael Yon is one of the few who rightfully exemplifies this designation.

His current assignment has him down in Panama City learning what he can about the various migrant groups heading towards the Unites States southern border. We hope to have him on to talk about that soon on the NOQ Report, but today’s episode focused on his experiences on January 6th in Washington DC when he watched Antifa and other “agent provocateurs” driving protesters to storm the Capitol Building.
He has seen this type of activity before. In fact, he said what happened on January 6th was relatively mild compared to what he’s seen in areas around the world, most recently on Hong Kong. He said what happened in DC was mild even when compared to what has been happening in American cities like Portland and Seattle. It wouldn’t have even been nearly as newsworthy if it didn’t happen in our nation’s capital in a way that drove a leftist agenda.

I asked him who he thought was behind the various provocations of riots and anarchic activity in the United States and around the world. His answer was lengthy and very telling.

“Actually I’d like to answer this in 2 different parts,” he said. “One is that there’s context all over the world where this is happening in many countries, right. It’s happening in Japan. I’ve written 3 books there in Japanese and English and the Japanese publisher wants another. They’re doing the same thing and in Japan, splitting apart, trying to for instance split off Okinawa.”

Yon is a former Green Beret. Anative of Winter Haven, Fl. he has been writing from Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004. No other writer has spent as much time with combat troops in these two wars. His dispatches from the frontlines have earned him the reputation as the premier independent combat writer of his generation. His work has been featured on “Good Morning America,” The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, ABC, FOX, as well as hundreds of other major media outlets all around the world.

“I spent more than half of my life in other countries outside of the United States,” he continued. “Not half of my adult life but more than literally half my life in so many countries, right, and I see this now.”

He detailed how what we saw in Washington DC on January 6th is something that has been trending across the world for a while. The tactics used are so similar, one should have a hard time believing they’re not being coordinated. The question is, who’s running the overarching movement?

“So, who runs all this stuff?” he asked, repeating my inquiry. “Again, multi player game here. There’s nobody at the top of the pyramid. This is a very flat pyramid, right? I mean it goes up in a pyramid shape and then it’s got a big flat area up there with CCP of course, Russians, you’ve got Soros of course, you’ve got, you know, Democrats or whoever that want this or that, people who’re just in it for financial reasons, people that want, you know, to get money because of the color of their skin from other people because of the color of their skin.”

It all seems very similar to past ideological uprisings, including the attempt to spread Marxism at multiple times over the past 170 years. Is there a tie that binds the various radical leftist movements through modern history? Yon believes there is.

“Communism is clearly a cult,” he said. “You know there’re two things in the world that you can never go wrong with—studying mathematics and studying cults. Because cults everywhere, right, and communism is a cult. Antifa is clearly a cult. BLM is clearly a cult.”

We cannot stop the spread of extremism in America if we do not understand the motivating factors. Once we accept that Antifa, BLM, and other radical movements are cults, we can proceed to handle them appropriately.

Watch the show on Rumble or Locals, or listen to it on Apple Podcasts.

Rumble video on website 45 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

CCP advisor said in 2016 China could influence US elections and ‘buy the United States’

The Chinese Communist Party knows they can say the quiet part out loud because nobody's going to stop them.

by Scott Boyd
March 27, 2021

CCP advisor said in 2016 China could influence US elections and 'buy the United States'

The 2020 elections were rife with voter fraud. This is a contested statement, not because it’s untrue but because mainstream media and Big Tech got the candidate they wanted in the White House, so they’ve been suppressing information ever since election day. But the deeper we dig into the various elements of voter fraud that includes major revelations from the near and distant past, the clearer it becomes that this was always the plan for years.

An article on DJHJ Media caught my attention with a click-worthy headline. What I found in the article itself was shocking, not just because it was devastating evidence of motive and hypothetical action, but perhaps more importantly because I’d never heard it before. According to the article:
Jin Canrong, a professor and associate dean of the School of International Studies at Beijing’s Renmin University of China, in a July 2016 speech on “Sino-U.S. Strategic Philosophy” explained what China would have to do to replace the United States as the world’s only super p0ower.

Canrong is known for his very anti-American rhetoric, almost as bad as that coming from the DNC.

Canrong says China needs to tear down the US while building itself up.

His plans include a wide array of actions they can take to bring the US down including interfering in U.S. elections, controlling the American market, cultivating global enemies to challenge the United States, stealing American technology, expanding Chinese territory, and influencing international organizations.

Canrong suggests that China could side with those who hate the United States.
All of the insinuations by Canrong culminated in a quote he made regarding the Chinese Communist Party’s ability to influence U.S. elections. It wasn’t just “influence,” that he discussed, though. He claimed the CCP could outright buy whichever elections they wanted.
“The voting rate in the United States is about 30 percent, which means around 200,000 residents in each congressional district vote for the representative in that district. Normally the difference of votes between two candidates is 10,000 or less. If China has thousands of votes on hand, China will be the boss of the candidates.”

“The best scenario is China can buy the United States, and change the U.S. House of Representatives into the second Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.”
Many have long-suspected the Chinese Communist Party played a major roll in 2020 election fraud. Now we see that they’ve been considering, perhaps even planning it, since at least 2016.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

On January 8th, Nancy Pelosi Made an Ominous Phone Call That Could Change Everything
March 28, 2021 (1h ago)

2021.03.28-07.51-revolvernews-6060de5da86e2.jpg


The Democrats and the mainstream media have successfully branded the January 6th melee as an “armed insurrection” even though nobody was armed.

In reality, the only people who had loaded guns were the Capitol Police. And as a result, one unarmed Trump supporter by the name of Ashli Babbit was shot and killed – and sadly, nearly four months later, her death still remains a mystery.

The January 6th event was a mixed bag of goodies. Many different types of people showed up for a lot of different reasons. Fed-up Americans who believed their votes were stolen were there to let their voices be heard. Rowdy patriots, ready to take back the government and drain the swamp showed up.

Left-wing agitators and reporters were on sight to stoke the fires of “revolution,” and good-hearted MAGA “grandma and grandpas” who just wanted to support President Trump were innocently meandering around as well.

Some agitators fought with police in front of the cameras, while other groups were quietly ushered into the Capitol building by DC officials who looked more like friendly tour guides than law enforcement.

What happened on January 6th was not an insurrection by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, it was a jumbled assortment of protest and politcal theater that was cleverrly molded by Dems and media to form a “domestic terrorism” narrative.


WATCH: CHECK OUT DARREN BEATTIE'S LATEST INTERVIEWS
Video on website 2:46 min

But unbeknownst to most Americans, there actually was an “insurrection” that took place at the Capitol – however, it didn’t happen on January 6th. It took place on January 8th and it was carried out by Nancy Pelosi.

Two days after the Capitol melee, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made an ominous phone call that could change the entire game.

On January 8th, Nancy Pelosi picked up her phone and bypassed the military chain of command by making a jaw-dropping direct appeal to Army General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley.

Nancy Pelosi asked General Mark Milley to take action against President Trump.

Think about that for a minute: a politician who has no place whatsoever within the national security chain of command, went around the already-established chain of command channels and used her power and position to try and give direct orders to the nation’s top military officer.

Unbelievable.

What Nancy Pelosi did when she made that phone call was as close to an “insurrection” that you can get and a it was far more menacing and dangerous than anything “politically motivated” that went down at the Capitol on January 6th.

And Pelosi knows it.

That’s why now, both the Pentagon and Pelosi are trying to cover up the very phone call.

However, Judicial Watch is all over the case – and they’re now suing to get their hands on that damning phone call.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January phone call with U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — in which Pelosi raised concerns about what she described as an ‘unhinged’ President Trump — is now the subject of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. Watchdog group Judicial Watch announced its legal action this week, saying the call between the House speaker and the nation’s top military officer – regarding the powers of a sitting president – set a “dangerous precedent” that could affect future presidencies. The group said its Jan. 11 request for information regarding the Jan. 8 call between Pelosi and Milley received no response from the Department of Defense. [Fox News]
Below is a tweet thread from Judicial Watch discussing the FOIA request in more detail:

1616966293475.png

In addition, Nancy Pelosi foolishly documented her conversation with General Milley in a letter to her Democrat colleagues. Here’s some of what she said:

“This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike,” Pelosi wrote. “The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.”

Later, she added: “As you know, there is growing momentum around the invocation of the 25th Amendment, which would allow the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to remove the President for his incitement of insurrection and the danger he still poses,” Pelosi wrote.

“Yesterday, Leader Schumer and I placed a call with Vice President Pence, and we still hope to hear from him as soon as possible with a positive answer as to whether he and the Cabinet will honor their oath to the Constitution and the American people.”

Based on Pelosi’s own description of the phone call in that letter, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton is convinced that the Speaker of the House stepped way, way over the line.

Fitton said Pelosi has set a “dangerous precedent that could undermine the president’s role as commander in chief and the separation of powers.”

Indeed. However, what Pelosi did was even scarier and crazier than that. This woman tried to push the US military into taking “action” in a national domestic incident.
Insanity.

The only question now is – once her call is made public will Republicans pounce and use Pelosi’s power-crazed move to flip the false “insurrection narrative” on its ear, or will they let another golden opportunity to blow up the Dems narrative quietly slip away?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

A Republican strategist says GOP voting reform bills are about 'providing cotton candy' to the Trump-obsessed wing of the party
insider@insider.com (Connor Perrett) 4 hrs ago
5 dead after helicopter crash in Alaskan glacier
a group of people standing next to a man in a suit and tie: Gov. Brian Kemp signs SB 202 into law at the Georgia state Capitol in Atlanta on March 25, 2021. Governor Brian Kemp's Twitter feed/Handout via REUTERS
©

Governor Brian Kemp's Twitter feed/Handout via REUTERS Gov. Brian Kemp signs SB 202 into law at the Georgia state Capitol in Atlanta on March 25, 2021. Governor Brian Kemp's Twitter feed/Handout via REUTERS
  • Al Cárdenas, a Republican strategist, said Republican voting bills are "cotton candy" for the Trump base.
  • Cárdenas, who previously led the organization in charge of CPAC, made the comments on "Meet the Press."
  • Republicans in several states have launched efforts to overhaul the voting process.
  • See more stories on Insider's business page.
Al Cárdenas, a longtime Republican strategist who once led the organization that oversees CPAC, said Sunday that GOP bills to curtail voting rights are Republican leaders' attempt to appeal to the Trump-obsessed wing of the party.

"These 20 some voter reform laws being proposed in all of these states are all about providing cotton candy to the far-right base that believed the Donald Trump big lie about the election being fraudulent," Cardenas, the leader of the American Conservative Union from 2011 to 2014, said during an appearance on NBC News' "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

"Most of the voter suppression that takes place is run under the radar of laws and so forth," he added. He referenced ProPublica data that showed voters in predominantly white areas of Georgia waited to vote eight times less often than voters in communities that were majority Black during the June 2020 primary election.

Cárdenas, now a senior partner at the Ohio-based Squire Patton Boggs law firm, pointed toward the number of polling stations, poll workers, and polling machines as examples of how minority voters can be supressed.

"I agree that we need to have a revamp of the Voting Rights Act," he said of the landmark 1964 law that was in 2013 gutted by the Supreme Court. "If it was timely in the 60s, it's even more timely now. But you need to look more at voter suppression at the local level - that's where it really hits hard."

Earlier in March, the US House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, dubbed the For the People Act, which includes major voting rights expansions and stricter regulations on campaign spending.
A number of states with Republican leaders at the helm are considering bills to overhaul their voting systems.

The most prominent piece of legislation so far was a controversial bill signed last week into law in Georgia by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. The bill followed Georgia leaders, including Kemp, repeated rebuke of Trump's false claims about widespread fraud in the state after his loss there.

The Georgia law introduces a number of changes, including one that makes it illegal to give food or water to people waiting in line to vote and another that limits the number of ballot drop-off boxes allowed.

Florida lawmakers are considering a controversial bill that would ban ballot drop boxes, would require more-frequent requests for mail-in ballots, and would only allow immediate family to handle someone's ballot, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Trump for months following last year's election refused to accept President Joe Biden's win, repeatedly telling his followers that widespread voter fraud, of which there was no evidence, resulted in his loss. He and lawyers for his campaign lost dozens of lawsuits that attempted to challenge the results.

Trump's continued claims about the election are widely considered to have led to the incitement of the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol that led to five deaths.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Justice Department Is Struggling With January 6 Protest Cases -- an Overview

By Shipwreckedcrew | Mar 27, 2021 3:30 PM ET

808e2801-9417-4fd0-8d64-f9a75327860c-730x487.jpg
(AP Photo/J. David Ake, File)
The AP has a story out today detailing some of the struggles that the Justice Department is encountering in its efforts to prosecute hundreds of people who were in attendance at the protests in Washington, D.C., on January 6.

I’ve been watching this process from what I’d describe as a “macro” level for several weeks, trying to avoid getting sucked into focusing too much on one particular case or another. But yesterday, I did write this story about what I believe is the first substantive appeals court decision of significance on the government’s efforts, a case that concerned the nature of the presentation of evidence made by the government — as well as the conclusions drawn by the district court judge from that evidence — in connection with a decision to hold Eric Munchel and Lisa Eisenhart in custody pending trial. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the detention order entered against Munchel and Eisenhart and sent the case back to the district court for a new hearing — which language strongly suggesting that appropriate terms and conditions of pretrial release pending trial should be determined by the District Judge.

The factual analysis of the Court of Appeals — that Munchel and Eisenhart didn’t actually do anything other than entering the Capitol through an open door where Capitol Police were standing and allowing the crowd to enter — reflects some of the problems which the AP story highlights, i.e., the evidence the government is bringing before the courts doesn’t measure up to the rhetoric used by prosecutors and federal agents in their early comments, both in the courtroom as well as sworn affidavits.

From the AP story:
Authorities are still combing through a sea of evidence in what they say is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Justice Department. More than 300 people are facing federal charges and more are expected. The most serious charges have been brought against 10 people described as members and associates of the Oath Keepers and several members of another far-right extremist group, the Proud Boys.
But as the sprawling investigation has unfolded, prosecutors have sometimes struggled to maintain a consistent narrative and had to walk back statements made in court hearings or in papers. It has created an opening for defense attorneys to try to sow doubt in the case.
This is where I have attempted to keep a “macro” focus. I was struck in the first few weeks, when arrests were taking place, by the repeated use by the government agents in sworn affidavits of the same 8-10 paragraphs of exposition on the events of January 6. The paragraphs — “scene setters” for lack of a better description — gave the reader the impression that the Country was imperiled in those hours on the afternoon of January 6, and it was only by the Grace of God that democracy wasn’t subverted and the government toppled.

These 8-10 paragraphs have become the fixed narrative of the DOJ that it has put out to the media through press releases, and has been the foundation of “proffers” made by prosecutors as part of efforts to hold as many defendants in custody pending trial as possible. Proffers are a process by which the prosecutors make representations to the Court about what evidence it possesses and what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether the release of a defendant pending trial creates a threat to the safety of an individual or the community as a whole. The government doesn’t normally need to present witness testimony as part of a detention hearing because as officers of the court, and as official representatives of the Executive Branch, the prosecutors have legal and ethical obligations to not mislead the court about the nature of the evidence. The prosecution often submits documents and/or other physical evidence such as audio or video to back-up the proffer of what its evidence would show.

What is beginning to happen now, as some of the January 6 protest cases are moving further into the judicial process, is that when the evidence the government’s claims about what the evidence shows is subject to greater scrutiny, the evidence fails to live up to the hype of the narrative that the government sought to establish starting back on January 7 and thereafter.
Authorities wrote in court papers that the group not only conspired to “forcibly storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 — they planned their attack in advance.” The evidence is “irrefutable,” prosecutors wrote in another document….
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta agreed in February to keep Thomas Caldwell, who authorities have portrayed as a leader of the conspiracy, locked up while he awaits trial, saying the evidence showed he “engaged in planning and communications with others … to plan a potential military-like incursion on the Capitol on January the 6th.”
But after Caldwell’s lawyer challenged that assessment, the judge reversed his decision and released Caldwell to home confinement. Mehta said there’s no evidence he entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 or had been plotting to do so.
“Last time we were here 30 days ago, I was convinced that it was a plan to execute an incursion on the Capitol building,” the judge told Caldwell’s attorney. “You’ve raised some evidence that, I think, rebuts that notion.”
The judge has since released other defendants, noting there’s no evidence they assaulted anyone at the Capitol or, in some cases, don’t appear to be as involved in the planning before Jan. 6.
I’ll go through more specific examples of these kinds of case developments in future stories, as well as cover this topic in a podcast that is being organized with soon-to-be co-host Leslie MacAdoo Gordon, a new RedState contributor.

But one issue that is percolating at this moment in several pending cases — but has not yet broken out into the public arena quite yet — is a determined and widespread tactical effort by the Department of Justice to keep the actual evidence it has in all these cases out of public view.

The government is currently attempting to strong-arm defense attorneys into agreeing to “protective orders” in connection with “discovery” in these cases. The government is attempting to coerce an agreement out of defendants that they will not include any discovery materials or reference the specifics of discovery materials in any public filings in the cases — everything would be filed under seal, and only released to the public upon an order by the court.

“Discovery” is the process by which the government is obligated to turn over to the defense the evidence it intends to use to prove the defendant guilty of the charged crimes. What the government is required to produce is set forth in Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The timing of the obligation to provide discovery is linked to a defendant’s appearance at an “arraignment and plea” hearing where the charges in an indictment are made public. Many times, I handed a package of discovery material to defense counsel during such a hearing.

But the discovery obligation is a “continuing” one, and the government often produces discovery on an ongoing basis as it becomes available.

Although this production obligation is mandatory, it can be made subject to certain “protections” to prevent the material from being put in the public arena — when there exists good cause for such protections. The most obvious example is when the discovery contains classified information. In such cases, the defense agrees that it will handle the classified information in the same manner that classified information is handled by government officials who have access to such information.

In the January 6 protest cases, the government is demanding that defense counsel agree that all materials produced in discovery related to its overall investigation be subject to a protective order, because the investigation remains ongoing and further arrests are contemplated.

The problems created by this effort are manifest, but I’m only going to mention two briefly. I’ll come back to this in the weeks ahead, as the subject shifts into the courtroom with public filings.

First, any such protective order like the one being sought would prevent defense counsel in different cases from collaborating. They would not be able to communicate with each other about the strengths or weaknesses of the government’s cases against different sets of defendants. They would not be able to discuss inconsistencies in the government’s theories as applied in different cases, nor would they be able to exchange exculpatory information, unless they developed that information themselves, separate and apart from the material provided by the government under the protective order.

Second, the inability to make public filings challenging the nature of the evidence in the government’s cases prevents the public from scrutinizing what the government is doing in its name to some individuals who have done little more than express political opposition to the party in power. Criminal cases in the U.S. Justice System are required to be open to the public, so the conduct of the government in the name of the people can be scrutinized by those same people.

The government has not been reluctant to establish a narrative in the public discourse about its view of the events of January 6 by setting forth in a narrative fashion, in dozens of public filings, its version and description of events on that day.

The protective orders being demanded would prevent any evidence supporting a countervailing narrative from taking hold in public opinion, when the actual evidence is made subject to scrutiny.

It will be a dark day for justice, if the government succeeds in this effort.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
The protective orders being demanded would prevent any evidence supporting a countervailing narrative from taking hold in public opinion, when the actual evidence is made subject to scrutiny.
"Discovery" is where the Government makes its case pre-trial. In order to be accused, one has to know EXACTLY what one is accused of. And Discovery is where the Governments makes its case to the defendant and says "here is our best shot - now it's your turn."

There are reasons rarely to suspend discovery. Espionage, Apprehension, National Security, Asset Retention are but a few. But they are - or should be - rarely imposed. Suspending Discovery may be matter of "accomplices" that the defendant may warn, assets they may hide, countries they may warn, or secrets they may reveal. Usually, by Discovery, the defendant has been meaningfully and accurately charged and either is custody or bonded to a court date.

In this case the Non-Discovery card is being played in an effort to "control information" and tilt the legal tables in the favor of the Government. The facts of the case(s) really don't justify Non-Discovery.

The other factor of Non-Discovery not mentioned is that it severely limits the governments ability to "introduce evidence." Even more so than Discovery, which once performed limits government prosecution field allowable. Non-Discovery is almost like going to court to prove "sedition" - and unless Government can prove "sedition" in the first four sentences of their case - it won't happen.

And - that may be the point.

In reality, the Non-Discovery card is being played simply for the "Film At 11 crowd." Government expects 99 percent of cases to be tossed on lack of merit, is reinforcing the thought by Non-Discovery, and meanwhile keeping the gates and cages filled with "Pending Case Right Wing Extremists" simply for the public optics.

Government delay is Democratic advantage. "Keep those country boys down." And the MEEDIA helps them in this.

They will keep this going as long as appeals continue - possibly longer if there are parking tickets to be haggled over from the Right Wing Extremists parking tickets lodged under their windshield wipers from cars left since January 6.

Too bad. They're putting American 1st Amendment Right at peril in the process. The danger of a Weaponized Judicial Department.

Dobbin
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Breaking: Ballot Audit in Montana Finds Irregularities Characteristic of Larger Democrat Urban Centers – 6.33% Ballots Without Required Envelopes

By Jim Hoft
Published March 29, 2021 at 9:25am
1617045494057.png
We are starting to see a definite pattern here.

There were numerous abnormalities, over-counting, and outright fraud in the 2020 election in Democrat-majority enclaves across the country. It wasn’t just in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Atlanta, it appears to be more widespread.

A new election study from left-leaning Missoula, Montana found that 6.33% of all mail-in ballots lacked envelopes and the required signatures indicating it was cast on time.

So it wasn’t just Democrat inner cities, the election abnormalities is more widespread.


Via John Lott Jr. at Real Clear Investigations.
In November, the group approached state Rep. Brad Tschida, a Republican, to formally take up the issue. Tschida hired a lawyer involved in the group, Quentin Rhoades, to represent him in corresponding with Missoula County Elections Administrator Bradley Seaman, a Democratic appointee and a longtime supporter of progressive causes.
Seaman’s office complied with Tschida’s request for access to all of the county’s ballot envelopes, and on Jan. 4 a team of volunteers, overseen by Rhoades, conducted an audit with the assistance of the Missoula County Elections Office. The audit consisted of both a count and review of all ballot envelopes and comparing that to the number of officially recorded votes during the Nov. 3, 2020, general election.
Its conclusions were troubling: 4,592 out of the 72,491 mail-in ballots lacked envelopes— 6.33% of all votes. Without an officially printed envelope with registration information, a voter’s signature, and a postmark indicating whether it was cast on time, election officials cannot verify that a ballot is legitimate. It is against the law to count such votes.
What’s more, according to auditors, county employees claimed that during the post-election audit, some of the envelopes may have been double-counted, possibly indicating an even higher number of missing envelopes.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Five Most Significant Methods Used to Steal the 2020 Election from Donald Trump

By Joe Hoft
Published March 29, 2021 at 11:20am
fraud-biden-election-fraud-600x376.jpg

The US may never recover from the 2020 Election nightmare. More fraud was committed in the last election than any election in the history of the United States.

Below are the five most significant acts of fraud that were used by Joe Biden to steal the election.

The 2020 Election was a nightmare for America. The most sacred act of American citizens was destroyed as Obama-led and corrupted Democrats used every illegal election action imaginable to steal the record-setting election win away from President Trump. Below is a list of the top-five fraudulent actions that enabled Biden to steal the election.

1. Chain of Custody Discrepancies

Perhaps the most notable fraudulent action in the 2020 election involved the distribution and gathering of absentee ballots, many of which are suspected of being fraudulent. Before the election, the Democrats and their surrogates went around the country and unconstitutionally manipulated absentee ballot rules so nearly anyone could drop off or gather these ballots in states across the country. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg threw hundreds of millions at this effort as well.

In Wisconsin, for example, before the 2020 Election, the Republican leaders of the state’s House and Senate for some reason signed an unconstitutional agreement with notable Democrat attorney Marc Elias. They had no authority to sign off on an agreement with the Hillary-connected attorney and yet they did. This allowed for unconstitutional drop boxes being placed around the state. The problem with drop boxes is that they allow for anyone to drop a ballot or ballots into them and allow for manipulation after the ballots are harvested. Also, changes like this to state constitutions require the approval of the state legislature, not just the leaders of the legislature:
In Georgia, to this day, there are over 400,000 absentee ballots without the legally required chain of custody documentation. Georgia gave the election to Joe Biden despite these illegal ballots being included in their final counts. No doubt this happened in multiple states:
2. Illegal Ballots Electronically Dropped in the Early Morning of November 4th
We’ve written extensively about this. In the early morning of November 4th, massive ballots ‘drops’ for Joe Biden occurred which gave Biden the lead and the election. These fraudulent ballots were never fully reviewed or vetted. After these massive drops, the remaining entries in the election were all consistently for Biden. Hundreds of thousands of ballots went for Biden while no one was looking:

Rumble video on drop and roll on website 3:35 min

3.Illegal Ballots Physically Dropped and caught on camera in the Early Morning of November 4th
There actually is evidence of these fraudulent ballots being literally dropped off at various vote counting facilities around the country on Election night. We saw this in Georgia and again in Michigan. After requesting video footage from election night in Detroit, the video was finally provided and evidence of fraud was uncovered:

The liberal media first said this never happened despite eyewitness testimony. Then the liberal media shook it off after the video was recovered showing exacting what happened on election night!
4. Ballots Switched from President Trump to Biden
We reported on numerous identified ‘glitches’ where ballots or votes were switched from President Trump to Joe Biden or were removed from President Trump. These observations which occurred live on TV showed the President’s votes being diminished. These “glitches” have never been explained.

One group obtained the election day data feed used by the New York Times and identified millions of votes being either switched from President Trump to Joe Biden or deleted from President Trump’s column. This too was enough to overturn the 2020 Election:
5. No GOP Observers Allowed in Counting Areas – Only Democrats
Across the country, Republicans were not allowed near the counting areas after the election. As ‘Dilbert’ creator Scott Adams noted, once the election became non-transparent by force, it became illegitimate.
The 2020 Election will always be illegitimate and Joe Biden, Obama, and the Democrat Party will go down as being involved in the biggest theft in world history.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Salon Keeps Lying about Capitol Protest, Weapons, Double Standards

By Ben Wetmore
Published March 29, 2021 at 12:30pm
salon_jon-skolnik.jpg

Jon Skolnik | Salon Journalist | Muck Rack
Cross-posted from TGP FactCheck
  • “Armed Insurrection” is a lie
  • Salon calls Sen. Johnson a racist for fearing BLM and Antifa more than Trump supporters
  • Factual lies continue to make their way into leftist stories of the event
  • Skolnik gives erroneous “context” to make Johnson’s comments appear racist
OUR RATING: Trash Journalism, aka the Daily Beast.
Salon.com writer Jon Skolnik labels the events of Jan. 6 as an “insurrection” citing incorrect information. He does this so as to smear Sen. Johnson’s comments as insensitive and racist. Furthermore, Skolnik attempts to downplay the violence of Black Lives Matter protests to further discredit Johnson.

Major Violations:
  • Bad Sources
  • Superficial Investigation
  • No Evidence to Support Claims
  • Misrepresentation
  • Lying
The three facts easily disputed within Skolnik’s article are 1] that the event of Jan. 6th is an “insurrection,” 2] that this “insurrection” saw five people die, including a police officer, and 3] that these were “rioters” who “brought a house of weapons to the rally, including guns, smoke bombs, stun guns, knives, brass knuckles, as well as other items that could be fashioned into makeshift weapons.”
“Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. is facing blistering backlash after admitting that he didn’t feel threatened by the pro-Trump rioters at the Capitol insurrection but would have if they had been Black Lives Matter protestors.

Five people died during the insurrection, including one police officer. Some 140 law enforcement officers were injured, and two officers died by suicide following the riot. Over 315 people have been charged in connection to the Capitol riot, and about forty have been arrested. Rioters brought a host of weapons to the rally, including guns, smoke bombs, stun guns, knives, brass knuckles, as well as other items that could be fashioned into makeshift weapons.”
These three can be handled systematically. First, Skolnik’s only evidence for calling the protest an insurrection is one Politico “fact check” that says the Jan. 6th protest was an “armed insurrection” because people showed up to “stop the vote confirmation and keep Trump in office despite the election results” and because they showed up carrying a “weapon” of some sort. Obviously, there are a great many problems with this being a simple factual claim.

There is absolutely no mention that millions of these protesters believed that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. So it wasn’t despite the election results that they showed up. It was because the election results were reasonably suspicious that Trump supporters showed up to pressure Senators to postpone validating the election. Whether or not they were armed will be addressed shortly. In order to prove this claim on a plausible basis, Skolnik must include more than one measly source, who at best is clearly biased.

As well, it seems clear that these people were armed with primarily defensive devices anticipating unchecked violence from members of Antifa. Violence from Antifa, which has included shooting a pro-Trump man Aaron Danielson in the street in Portland last October. [17]

Also that month, another Trump supporter Lee Keltner was shot and killed by the media in broad daylight in Denver, [18] by an individual who was originally suspected to be a member of Antifa as well. [19][20] Notably, Keltner’s killer is free on bond, has not yet been arraigned, and his judge has made sure that he now doesn’t even have to worry about the minor inconvenience of GPS tether monitoring. [21]

So it was not at all unreasonable for the conservatives attending the January Capitol protest to expect that violence would be exacted against them, and the official police response would be to do nothing.

In fact many city police officials have quietly let it be known that ‘stand down’ orders have been given to give left-wing activists legal free reign to do as they wish. [22][23][24]

According to Webster’s Dictionary, the definition of an insurrection is “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” If this is an insurrection, it is an extremely small and unarmed one. Of the 100,000 people who came to see Trump’s speech that day, fewer than 1,000 “stormed” the Capitol. [25] And as we have discussed elsewhere, it’s also not clear whether it was Trump-supporters who instigated the violence and property damage and destruction at the Capitol, or if they were merely walking into the building after the doors had been broken open.

The second factual claim is that five people died, including a police officer. The officer Skolnik refers to is Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whose death the New York Times originally, wrongfully, blamed on a fire-extinguisher wielding Trump supporter due to their egregiously sloppy and shoddy reporting. The Times relied on official statements and did not verify the death during one of the most contentious news stories of the past decade, with any reliable source other than gossip. It took them a month to update their story, [26] which is now being presented in court as a claim that a form of tear gas known as ‘bear spray’ was used on Sicknick and others, causing him to later have a medical episode while at home.

Since then, the Times has retracted the original Officer Sicknick story since they lacked sufficient evidence to make such a claim. This is a clear and blatant lie. Authorities have still not released an autopsy, toxicology or cause of death for Sicknick. Furthermore, the two men indicted by the grand jury have been charged with assault on an officer with a dangerous weapon, not manslaughter. So, not only do we not know the cause of death, no one is being currently charged with the death of Officer Sicknick and therefore it’s very disingenuous to blame his death solely on the protesters.

The other four deaths were Trump supporters, with only one dying from deliberate violence: unarmed Ashli Babbitt who was shot while posing no serious physical threat. So, the only person who died from deliberate violence during this supposedly armed insurrection was a pro-Trump protestor. At best, Skolnick has done a superficial investigation on the topic. At worst, he is continuing to push a lie.

As for whether or not these were armed protestors, there is no evidence to support the claim. Julie Kelly reports that of the 200 people arrested from that day, only 14 defendants face any sort of weapons charge. However, the most crucial part of this claim is that “Not one person has been charged with possessing or using a gun inside the Capitol. Further, no one has been identified as carrying a gun inside the building,” according to Kelly. So any “armed insurrectionists” were a tiny percentage of the 100,000 protestors, and they “stormed” the capital unarmed and hurt no one. This is a clear misrepresentation of the kinds of people who came to the Capitol on the 6th.

The crowd was present to hear Trump speak, and agitators confronted the Capitol Police, whose overreaction led to the situation spiraling out of control.

Finally, Skolnik, as many leftists have done before him, attempts to paint the BLM protests in contrast as largely peaceful. Sen. Johnson cites a study from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, saying that he would fear a BLM riot more than the rally of Jan. 6th because “Out of 7,750 protests last summer associated with BLM and Antifa,” he said, “570 turned into violent riots that killed 25 people and caused $1-$2 billion of property damage.”

Sam Jones, a senior communications manager from ACLED said Johnson’s claim lacks the context of the whole study that “determined that of the 10,600 demonstrations that swept the country from May 24 to Aug. 22, nearly 95 percent of them were entirely peaceful.” Jones also blamed the level of force used by the police and aggressive intervention from counter-protest groups as a cause of the violence.

Unfortunately, none of these explanations make the 570 riots that turned violent any more peaceful nor do they make Johnson’s claims seem unreasonable. As we’ve already proved, the “armed insurrection” of Jan. 6 was neither armed nor an insurrection with almost no real violence inflicted on either side. Even if you accept the inflated left-wing figures that only 5% of BLM rallies turned violent, that stands in contrast to the 0% of Trump rallies that turned violent even though Trump supporters waiting for the President to speak were being tear gassed, shot with paintballs in the eyes, struck, clubbed and more.

If the Trump protesters were armed insurrectionists intent on stopping the peaceful transfer of power, why didn’t they execute Ashli Babbit’s killer? Why didn’t they shoot the Capitol Police?

Why didn’t they execute Senators or then-Vice President Mike Pence who had lied to the public about taking voter fraud seriously and then, at the last moment, claimed that he lacked the authority to stop an election certification he had expressed doubts about? These grievances may not be legitimate to a Salon writer living in Brooklyn, but they were not just a massed Trump crowd waiting for their moment to end democracy, and to portray the situation that way is fundamentally dishonest.

OUR RATING: Trash Journalism, aka the Daily Beast.

Bibliography:
1 ] The Definitive Case Proving Donald Trump Won the Election - Revolver
2 ] Game-On for the Coup? - The American Mind
3 ] Staggering Evidence of 2020 Presidential Election Fraud
4 ] Update on the BIG LIE: Law Professor Confirms Election Fraud Evidence Is "Significant" - Cases Only Dismissed on Process Grounds Not Merit
5 ] Definition of INSURRECTION
6 ] No Proof January 6 Was an ‘Armed Insurrection’
7 ] The New York Times Retracts the Sicknick Story

8 ] January 6 Narrative Collapse: Assault Charges Spell Problems for DOJ, FBI in Officer Sicknick Case - Revolver
9 ] The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot
10 ] No Proof January 6 Was an ‘Armed Insurrection’
11 ] Did the BLM Protests Against the Police Lead to the 2020 Spike in Homicides?

12 ] EXCLUSIVE: Trump supporter flagged with facial recognition technology at airport, interrogated by DHS, FBI
13 ] FBI Seized Congressional Cellphone Records Related to Capitol Attack
14 ] 'Shock and Awe': Feds Admit They are Prosecuting Jan. 6 Capitol Protesters to Create Chilling Effect on 1st Amendment - Big League Politics
15 ] DHS looking at tracking travel of domestic extremists

16 ] Feds drop charges against final 38 defendants over inauguration-day riots
17 ] Man suspected in deadly Portland shooting calls himself ‘100% ANTIFA’
18 ] Lee Keltner built reputation as skilled hat-maker and “very strong patriot” before joining protest front lines
19 ] Trump Supporter Shot Dead in Denver, Media Tiptoes Around It

20 ] EXCLUSIVE: Evidence Indicates Denver Killer Dolloff Provoked Trump Supporter Before Shooting and Killing Him
21 ] Judge removes GPS monitoring requirement for Denver security guard shooting suspect
22 ] Denver police union head: 'Stand-down' order was in effect when pro-cop rally attacked
23 ] LMPD officers say they’re being told to stand down during protests

24 ] Liberal politicians who order police to stand down are the same people who want to ban guns
25 ] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0cf112-5d97-11eb-8bcf-3877871c819d_story.html
26 ] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...r-striking-capitol-police-officer/ar-BB1dG92n
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Report: President Trump Is in Regular Contact with Cleta Mitchell – The Pro-Trump Attorney Leading Efforts to Stamp Out Election Fraud

By Jim Hoft
Published March 29, 2021 at 8:33am
cleta-mitchell-trump-attorney.jpg

Attorney Cleta Mitchell is a longtime Republican attorney and advocate for free and fair elections.

Recently, Mitchell spoke to reporters about her latest efforts to stamp out Democrat voter fraud.


Cleta Mitchell is serious about her latest work.

Cleta will head the multi-million dollar National Election Protection Initiative.
1617047217391.png


According to Cleta Mitchell, she is in regular contact with President Trump.
MSN reported:
Cleta Mitchell, who has worked for years on Republicans and on conservative causes, is working with several Republican groups and organizations aiming to craft more restrictive laws.
Mitchell is in regular contact with Trump, she told the Associated Press.
“People are actually interested in getting involved and we have to harness all this energy,” Mitchell said. “There are a lot of groups that have projects on election integrity that never did before.”
There’s much work to do to ensure the US does not go the way of Venezuela.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Exclusive – Brian Kemp: Stacey Abrams Making Money Off ‘Scam,’ ‘Racket’ Election Bill Disinformation
84
ATLANTA, GA - OCTOBER 23: Georgia gubernatorial candidates (L-R) Democrat Stacey Abrams, Republican Brian Kemp and Libertarian Ted Metz debate at Georgia Public Broadcasting in Midtown October 23, 2018 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by John Bazemore-Pool/Getty Images)
John Bazemore-Pool/Getty Images
ASHLEY OLIVER29 Mar 2021383

Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) railed against Democrat activist Stacey Abrams for her response to the Georgia legislature’s recent passage of the Election Integrity Act, telling host Matthew Boyle on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Sunday that Abrams was spreading untruths in order “to pad her bank account.”

Abrams excoriated the bill, SB 202, upon its passage Thursday, calling it an act of voter suppression and “Jim Crow 2.0,” but Kemp celebrated the bill as a means of expanding voter access and increasing security in the state’s election processes. The governor accused Abrams, who founded Fair Fight — a voter rights organization and fundraising giant — of intentionally spreading inaccurate information about the bill as a money-making scheme.

“Stacey Abrams is making a lot of money off of this,” Kemp told host Matthew Boyle. “She’s getting billionaires and other people and people that don’t even have a lot of money to give money to this cause, really saying things that are untruthful to pad her bank account.”

Listen:
Audio on website 18:39 min


Kemp also said President Joe Biden — who, like Abrams, criticized the bill as “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” — displayed a lack of awareness for the bill’s provisions, arguing Biden has failed to acknowledge strict voting measures in his own home state of Delaware and that Biden’s focus on Georgia’s new law allows the president to shift attention away from the growing southern border immigration crisis.

“I think Joe Biden’s so focused on Georgia’s election law even though he doesn’t know his own laws in his own state are more restricted than we are to take the focus away from the outrageous things that are happening on the border right now with kids being trafficked and people swarming across the border,” Kemp said.

The governor added, “I think that’s probably orchestrated probably not by him but his political minions that are serving in the White House now.”

One provision of the bill specifically gained attention after some voices, including Abrams’, suggested voters waiting in lines at polls were prohibited from having access to free water.

Kemp clarified, “Certainly any voter can bring water. They can bring food. They could order a Domino’s Pizza … while they’re standing in line, but we’re not going to allow a state representative or me as governor that’s on the ballot to go out and hand water, which has actually happened before in Georgia. We’re not going to let third party groups do that whether it’s Stacey Abrams’ group, the NRA [National Rifle Association], or anybody else. That would be inappropriate within 150 feet of a polling location, but you know if you get outside of that boundary, you can hold political signs up and you can do basically whatever you want. This is just making sure voters are not bothered or intimidated while they’re in line and voting.” He added that polling locations will be able to set up self-service water coolers for those waiting in line.

Abrams, dismissing the intent of the bill’s language, had written on social media, “They criminalize free water & food for those in line”:

Kemp described Abrams’ persistent attacks on the bill as a “scam and a racket.”

“And then you got Abrams that is making money on this,” he said. “It’s just a scam and a racket in many ways, and I’m just so thankful that you guys and a lot of other people like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post and the Washington Examiner and others that are simply putting the facts out there because you know even the Atlanta paper is putting editorials out there that are just factually not correct.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

How Georgia Republicans’ Election Bill Fails To Address Major Causes Of Electoral Chaos

The legislation leaves out critical election security provisions that had been in two omnibus bills that moved through the Georgia House and Senate in March.


Gabe Kaminsky

By Gabe Kaminsky
MARCH 29, 2021

Last Thursday, Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed the “Election Integrity Act of 2021,” Senate Bill 202, into law. The 95-page bill adds ID requirements for mail-in ballots, halts the acceptance of absentee ballots within 11 days of an election, and prohibits third-parties from providing gifts to voters waiting in line at a polling place.

“Significant reforms to our state elections were needed,” Kemp said upon signing the bill. “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.”

Yet the legislation leaves out critical election security provisions that had been in two omnibus bills that moved through the House and Senate in March. Under pressure by Democrats and corporate media, Republican lawmakers ditched proposals to repeal no-excuse absentee voting and kept voting dramatically expanded in ways that helped fuel election chaos in 2020. Both proposals that were left out instead aimed to ensure Americans participate in an election day—not an election season.

No-Excuse Absentee
As part of SB 241, a prior version of the Election Integrity Act, Republicans would have repealed no-excuse absentee voting, meaning reserving mail-in balloting for those who have reasons such as a disability. This would have encouraged most voters to show up to the polls in person and cast their vote in the most secure environment.

Whereas standard absentee voting requires a voter to clarify why he cannot show up to the polls in-person, no-excuse mail-in voting means that someone can ditch the most-secure in-person process for no reason at all. Mail-in is widely acknowledged as a voting process susceptible to much higher rates of error, fraud, and vote manipulation.

Senate Bill 241 passed on March 8 in the Senate with the aim of reserving absentee voting for those 65 years and up, with a disability, or for people out of town. Even though the GOP abandoned this in the eventual measure signed by Kemp, it passed 29 to 20 on March 8.

But something seems to have happened along the way. Senate Majority Leader Mike Dugan, R-Carrollton, said the proposal was not included in Republican Sen. Max Burns’ SB 202 because it “seemed to cause consternation” among Democrats and interest groups.

In the 2020 presidential election, more than 1.3 million Georgians voted by mail, out of about 5 million voters total. In February, Carter Jones of the nonpartisan group Seven Hill Strategies in Atlanta produced a 14-page report outlining “myriad problems” with mail-in voting in Fulton County, Georgia, in Atlanta. Jones spent an estimated 270 hours observing the county’s election processes from the months of October to January.

The consultant claims absentee ballots led to “sloppy data entry” and “sloppy and replete” procedures. Joe Biden won a little over 72 percent of the large county, where a county judge is now seriously considering the unsealing of ballots after a lawsuit was dismissed in December.

” …SHS received multiple reports of absentee ballots being sent to the wrong addresses, which seems to be the fault of sloppy data entry by staff. Future staff trainings should underscore the importance of correctly entering the temporary/preferred addresses of all ballot applicants,” wrote Jones. “Although Fulton County allocated ample resources for absentee ballot processing leading into the general elections, the processes themselves were extremely sloppy and replete with chain of custody issues as the massive tide of ballots bounced around the Fulton Gov’t HQ building.” Chain of custody means opportunities for ballots to be unsecured and available to people who are not legally allowed to handle them.

Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, acknowledged problems with no-excuse mail-in voting after being criticized by former President Donald Trump for his handling of election security. “It opens the door to potential illegal voting,” Raffensperger said at a hearing before the House Governmental Affairs Committee in December. He added that mass mail-in voting is a “tremendous burden” on state counties seeking to process votes in a timely manner.

While Georgia has had no-excuse mail-in voting since 2005, many states drastically expanded mail-in balloting more than a year prior to or leading up to the 2020 election, claiming concerns about COVID-19 although the CDC belatedly said it was safe to vote in person even if testing COVID-positive. Gov. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania signed an election bill in 2019, Act 77, that legalized no-excuse mail-in ballots. A lawsuit in the commonwealth from 2020 claimed that the mass mail balloting system violated the state constitution.

The president of the Connecticut Town Clerks Association, Joseph V. Camposeo, detailed the various issues that come from such a process in 2011. “Under a no-excuse system there is no way to guarantee the applicant is voting the ballot,” Camposeo said. “The absentee voting system already has been the focus of forgery, coercion, bribery and multiple-voting complaints.”

While no-excuse remote voting drags out elections, which is expensive and can make it difficult for workers to process information accurately, the GOP did not stand resolute on this. Georgia Republicans put the provision aside in order to appease Democrats, who believe their interests are served by lax election security. Why has the legislature not also acted to prevent ballot harvesting and pressure on those voting by mail? It’s not clear.

Sunday Voting

Part of House Bill 531, authored by Rep. Barry Fleming and five other Republicans, would reduce early voting on Sundays to align with other governmental and private institutions’ normal hours. It would limit Sunday voting prior to election day to one optional day in each county.

“Our goal in this bill is to make sure that Georgia’s election results get back quickly and accurately,” Fleming said. “The way we begin to restore confidence in our voting system is by passing this bill. There are many commonsense measures here to begin that process.”

Fleming’s bill did not receive enough GOP votes to advance to the full chamber.

In 2020, the Democratic Party was able to capitalize off COVID-19 and institute widespread mail-in ballot procedures, which are widely acknowledged to be highly susceptible to error and fraud. Mail-in balloting caused jarring headaches and lawsuits across the country. Secure, same-day, in-person elections provide a sense of confidence in the process for voters and reduce opportunities for error, fraud, and lack of confidence in the integrity of the vote.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Smackdown: CNN Host Struggles as GOP Congressman Schools Her on Dems' HR1

Kristine Marsh
March 29th, 2021 8:13 AM

Florida Congressman Mike Waltz left one CNN host struggling to keep up, as he shot down her Democrat agenda talking points as guest on her Sunday night show. CNN’s Pamela Brown brought on the Republican so she could lecture him about his party pushing “new voting restrictions.” But the tables turned as Waltz used the segment to expose the Democrats’ radical H.R.1 bill while defeating Brown’s arguments about GOP voting laws.

The host opened the interview with a snarky comment bashing Florida: “COVID restrictions are nearly nonexistent there, but restrictions on voting are in the works,” she said before introducing the Florida congressman. Waltz wasn’t even going to let that nasty sarcasm slide.

He cheerily noted to the anchor that DisneyWorld, Orlando attractions and their schools have been open “for months” without major breakouts: “We all want to follow the data, but I would suggest a lot of these lockdown states are not doing that.”

https://cdn.mrctv.org/videos/51666/51666-480p.mp4 2:53 min

It didn’t get better for CNN after that. As the journalist tried to twist Waltz’s commitment to election integrity as a sign he was a 2020 election truther, he shot back:
You said Florida is tightening up the laws. But Florida used to be a laughingstock of elections, and now we had a very clear election because we did things differently in 16, and 18 and will continue to improve in ‘20--and so I just kinda reject the premise that Florida is already tightening its rules, what it's doing is making it better, and I think if those other states do so then we’ll have a much cleaner and much more integral election going forward with voter integrity.
As Brown continued to badger him about new Florida voting laws, the congressman schooled her on how Florida already had stricter rules for mail-in-voting than other states and they were just making the process even safer.

“We knew all of our numbers and all of our totals on election night. You contrast that with states who changed the rules with months in advance with unelected officials,” he noted, adding, “So, I think this notion that states don't have the right to improve their elections over time is just a fallacious one.” The Republican continued to dominate the conversation by schooling CNN’s viewers about Democrats’ radical federal election law that the media is spending much less time on than fearmongering over Republican state voting laws:
REP. MIKE WALTZ [R-FL]: [W]hy then the Democrats,, if everything is fine, want to make all states perform their elections the same with H.R.1. And include things that just don't make sense. Dropping the voting age to 16? Do we want teenagers voting?
PAMELA BROWN: Registering to vote.
WALTZ: Banning any state from requiring I.D. You know, I have to present an I.D. to get cigarettes or beer! We certainly should, for the integrity of the vote. So, if everything is fine, why are the Democrats cramming this, and I can tell you what is going on in Georgia is about politics. They are gaslighting these changes. They are gaslighting these changes and improvements and fearmongering calling them racist, calling them Jim Crow. So that had they can then justify getting rid of the filibuster, and then cram through H.R.1.

BROWN: Well, that's a --
WALTZ: Which will make it the nation vote like California and vote like New York.
As Brown turned to press Waltz on Georgia’s new voting legislation, Waltz called out CNN for flipping the script:

“But Gabriel [Sterling] and [Brian] Kemp were the same officials, CNN and the media and others were lauding when they pushed back on Trump and now it's a crisis and voter suppression and now it's racist. So I think there's a little bit of talking out of both sides of the mouth here,” he noted.

The CNN anchor huffed, “I'm not taking a position, I'm looking at the facts!”

There was more cross-talk as the two dueled over election laws. Waltz got to hammer this point home again about H.R.1, as Brown tried to change the subject to China and coronavirus:

“Their first bill, not immigration, not health care reform. Not transportation. Their number one priority, and if everything is fine, then why do they want to so dramatically change the way the entire nation votes?” he posed.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Georgia Attorneys Convene Two Grand Juries to See If Trump Tried to Manipulate Election — Two Weeks After News Broke the Trump Call Was Misreported and Fabricated by State Officials

By Jim Hoft
Published March 29, 2021 at 3:15pm

Just two weeks ago news broke that the Washington Post was caught fabricating a quote by President Trump falsely claiming the president urged a Georgia election official to “find the fraud” in the 2020 election.


Now we know that Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger’s office secretly recorded the phone call with President Trump, then lied about it to the far left Washington Post.

And Raffensperger’s office released the dishonest story to the liberal media and it was published on January 9, 2021 — days before the sham impeachment trial!


Georgia Chairman of the Republican Party David Shafer posted this on his Twitter account as
the news broke on Monday

.1617062292846.png

This shows who Trump was dealing with in Georgia!
Why does Raffensperger still have a job?

1617062223682.png

Today news broke that Fulton County Attorney General is investigating President Trump for telling officials to “find the fraud” — something he never said and was made up completely by Georgia officials and the media.

fulton-fani-willis.jpg
Fani Willis

Today news broke that the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis convened two grand juries to investigate whether President Trump tried to manipulate the election.

The lawsuits are being led by anti-Police Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

She says she is going for RICO charges against the 45th President Donald Trump.


Via The Daily Mail:
Two grand juries have been convened in Georgia to investigate if Donald Trump tried to manipulate the general election.
Jurors in the secret proceedings are to be asked to subpoena documents and recordings for the investigation ‘in the very near future,’ Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis told The Daily Beast.
Three cases have been referred to Fani Willis’ office by the Secretary of State – including to probe the infamous phone call in which Trump told the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to ‘find’ 11,780 votes.
Willis has assembled a crack team of investigators that includes a former deputy sheriff with nearly 30 years experience as a cop and a lawyer who wrote the handbook on prosecuting RICO charges against the mafia.
Please note: Fani Willis is NOT investigating the late night ballot counting in her county.
She’s going after Trump instead.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Judge Tosses Junk Terrorism Charges against 3 Defendants in Whitmer Plot Where Ring Leader Was FBI Informant

By Jim Hoft
Published March 29, 2021 at 6:05pm
fbi-600x338.jpg

This didn’t make many headlines back in October…

The ring leader in the plot to kidnap wretched Governor Gretchen Whitmer was an FBI informant.

He was planted into the group and was the one who pushed the entire plan.


The FBI was spying on lower, middle-class Americans and setting them up on terrorism charges.
The FBI then later arrested one of their own informants in the plot,
This was occurring as Antifa-BLM rioted and pillaged cities across the US.

terrorism-charges-dropped-michigan-whitmer.jpg

Charges were dropped against three defendents earlier today in Michigan.

On Monday Michigan Judge Michael Klaeren dropped terrorism charges against three men in the case.

The Detroit News reported:
Three men accused in an alleged plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer will not face false report or threat of terrorism charges, a Jackson County judge ruled Monday.
Judge Michael Klaeren of 12th District Court in Jackson dismissed the charge against Joseph Morrison and Pete Musico, both of Munith, and declined a request by prosecutors to add it to the charges against Paul Bellar, of Milford.
“There has to be some form of intent here to incite mayhem,” said Judge Michael Klaeren of 12th District Court in Jackson.
The charge carried a possible penalty of 20 years in prison.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Newsmax Host Greg Kelly RIPS Never-Trump Skunk Chris Wallace for Lying About New Georgia Voting Laws (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published March 29, 2021 at 6:33pm
wallace-kelly.jpg

Last week 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.

There’s a reason that Democrats are howling over this bill.

It makes it harder to cheat.

On Sunday Never-Trumper Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday insisted voters would be punished because they could not be treated with food and water while voting.

For decades there have been laws against this kind of electioneering — although Democrats frequently violate these laws.

PROOF: Democrat Operatives Paid Native Americans to Vote in Nevada With Gift Cards
On Monday Newsmax host Greg Kelly RIPPED skunk Chris Wallace for misreporting the Georgia laws and availability of water.

There is a reason why leftist groups are not allowed to give food, water, drinks, and cash to voters.

It obviously works for them.

Chris Wallace should know this.

Rumble video on website 2:21 min
 
Top