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

marsh

On TB every waking moment

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Arizona’s Maricopa Board of Supervisors Is Playing Games – Trying to Block a LEGITIMATE Forensic Audit of 2020 Election Ballots – Why?

By Joe Hoft
Published January 22, 2021 at 5:41pm
Arizona-Stop-the-Steal-600x315.jpg

What is going on in Arizona? After finally obtaining the right to audit the ballots in Maricopa County, those in power refuse to move forward and allow an audit by a legitimate forensic auditor.

Their actions show their desire to hide invalid ballots rather than identify any issues with the 2020 election in Arizona.


We reported on December 30th that concerned citizens in Maricopa County in Arizona got together to look into the election fraud in their state. They performed data analysis and found between 160,000 to 400,000 ‘Phantom’ Ballots and performed door to door canvasing and found up to 30% of the addresses they looked at were fraudulent. Their results were shocking. Liz Harris introduced the project :

The Arizona legislature held a hearing in December to discuss the various findings and accusations related to the election in Maricopa County and soon after the hearing the Senate subpoenaed the county. The County Board of Supervisors, who oversee the election in the county, sued the Senate to prevent the audit. Below are the Maricopa Board of Supervisors:
Arizona-Maricopa-Co-Board-of-Supervisors.jpg

But then the following occurred:
The county sued [weeks ago], claiming the Legislature lacked authority to examine ballots. But on Wednesday, the county dropped its opposition, acknowledging the Legislature’s authority. Fann said the county has agreed to turn over all requested materials, provided the auditor is certified by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and that only authorized parties will have access to the data.
Unfortunately this was all another ruse to prevent an adequate review of the ballots and images in Maricopa County.

According to an interview with Liz Harris, what the Board is not saying is that they want to select who performs the audit of their ballots because they can then prevent the things they don’t want reported through this auditor selection process. Hickman, Sellers and Gates are all Republicans. Gallardo is a Democrat.

Harris asks, “Why would the the Board of Supervisors do this?

Harris says that she is afraid the people of Arizona won’t understand the fact that these same people who prevented the forensic audit in the first place want to mandate that the auditor be from the same group that blessed the Dominion machines (the US Election Assistance Commission). She says, “Why does the Board not want to find fraud if there is fraud that exists.

We at the TGP have recommended for months that inventor and expert, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, should be forensically auditing all the swing states results.

Pulitzer is willing to do this basically for free. He has a process and therefore there is no reason not to use this outsider to review these results of ballots, unless of course you are trying to hide something!

At the state level, there have also been roadblocks. Karen Fann, the President of the Senate, Warren Peterson, Chair of the Arizona Judiciary Committee, and Michelle Ugenti-Rita, the Senator involved in Election issues, all need to step to the plate.

Why not have Pulitzer perform the audit alongside the chosen auditor by the Board of Supervisors, since Pultizer will do it basically for free?

Americans are upset. There is an incredible amount of evidence of fraud in Maricopa County Arizona alone. Americans need to see the evidence that the election was fair and free.

Right now it looks like it was not – at least not in Arizona for sure.

Americans demand an official audit of the ballots!


[COMMENT: Easy to understand - if Jovan proved that some of the ballots were physically unlawful ballots, their votes could be subtracted from the totals. This could change who won the election. This fact revealed before the impeachment would toss it out, laying validity to the President's claim, explain why the people storming the Capitol were so angry and justify Senator Cruz and Rep. Hawley's actions to challenge the Electors. It would also undermine further the legitimacy of President Biden and possibly many other elections, such as the Georgia Senate run-off. Send the state police in and seize the machines. The county is a political subdivision of the state in Arizona. The State Legislature has ultimate Constitutional jurisdiction over their Presidential election. ]
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Are We Still Allowed To Ask Questions?

FRIDAY, JAN 22, 2021 - 20:20
Authored by Paul Rosenberg via FreeMansPerspective.com,

Aside from a breathless stream of headlines and a few random inputs, I haven’t seen many facts regarding the events of January 6th. Circumstances made things that way for me, and now I’m glad they did, because it set me up for the really important issue: Am I allowed to ask questions about this, or am I not?

Bear in mind that I haven’t voted for or otherwise championed Mr. Trump. (Nor did I support his opponents.) More than that, I really want to know the answers to these questions. Especially given the fallout from January 6th, honest answers to these questions matter a great deal.

So, I’m going to stick my neck out and ask questions about this event that seem pertinent.

Question #1: What was the actual time line?
As I was driving on the 6th, I flipped on the radio and heard Mr. Trump speaking. I was aware that there was going to be a rally in the capitol, and so I listened for a minute or so, just enough to get the tone of it; a rally on the same day electoral votes were counted concerned me.

What I actually heard from Mr. Trump, however, was less than his strongest, and included something like, “I know you’re going to go down there…” combined with “patriotically and peacefully.” Hearing him mention “peacefully” comforted me. (Plus the fact that American conservatives take pride in being peaceful and courteous.)

And so I was rather shocked, not many minutes later, when a friend called and said something about the capitol. I responded along the lines of, “it sounds harmless enough”… whereupon I learned that protesters were already inside the building.

Since then I’ve seen claims that Mr. Trump was a mile away, in the middle of his speech, when the capitol building was being broken into.

So, between my own observations and the claims, I’d like to know what really happened when.

Again, I honestly don’t know. What troubles me is that I haven’t seen the claim refuted, only ignored.

Question #2: Were agents provocateur involved?
One of the random things I came across was a report from Michael Yon, perhaps the most experienced war reporter in the world, claiming BLM and Antifa agents provocateur led the break-in. This is a guy who should be able to tell.

I’ve further seen reports that someone named Sullivan was a known BLM leader, and was at the vanguard of people entering the building.

So, I don’t actually know that BLM and Antifa were involved with this, but I’d very much like to know. And once again, I haven’t seen this question addressed. Perhaps I’ve missed something conclusive on this, but the question deserves to be addressed with facts.

Question #3: Is thinking an election was rigged considered insane?
This is the impression I get from about half of my headline stream: That anyone believing the recent election was rigged is flat-out insane. But for me, that’s a real problem, because I’ve experienced election rigging, personally. On top of that, I’ve known a lot of inside players in my home state, giving me many more reasons to believe in election rigging.

That’s not proof that the November election was rigged, of course, but it’s clearly a reason for me to take seriously the possibility. And if I’m not allowed to ask, I have to wonder why.

As best I can tell, none of the loud voices (news networks, etc.) have analyzed what has been claimed as evidence. Again, I may have missed something, but I simply haven’t seen it. So far as I know, the courts have never examined it (they got rid of the cases on procedural grounds in every case I recall), nor did congress: the “insurrection” interrupted that, after which it was ignored. That sounds very convenient to me, but again, I could have missed a lot.

So again I’d like to know: Is such a question permissible, or will I be punished for asking it?

Question #4: Aside from trespassing and a few broken windows, what harm was done?
So far as I know, the answer is “not much,” though I may have missed something. A lady named Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed, but she was killed by the police, not the protesters. And details about other reported deaths are spotty. So, I think my question is valid.

Several hundred politicians were inconvenienced, of course, but that’s hardly a major issue.

A congressional baseball team being murderously shot up not too long ago was a big deal, but that came and went with almost none of the fanfare and fallout we’ve seen since January 6th.

So again I ask, precisely what harm was done? And I ask especially because I’ve seen words like “sacred” applied to this, and to me that reeks of idolatry and dogma, the opposites of reason and proportion.

Question #5: Where are the civil libertarians?
I’ll admit that this one rather ticks me off. Tens of thousands of people have been ejected from the public square, not because they caused actual harm, but because someone thinks they’re part of an “insurrection.” Bear in mind that almost none of these people were anywhere near Washington, DC on the 6th. All they did was to fall within some algorithm produced by a surveillance capitalism company. (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

I’ve further heard that people have lost jobs and financing in precisely the same manner: They had nothing to do with the event, but were somehow associated with it. Either that’s a witch hunt or there’s massive and direct evidence against all those people… and it sure doesn’t seem like that’s the case. Since when do we impose penalties for insurrection without a serious finding of fact?

And Ron Paul, for goodness sake? He’s a congenitally polite doctor, now old and retired. Disagree with him all you like, but to eject him from the public square is naked thuggery.

So again, I ask: Where are all the civil libertarians? They’re absent without leave, as best I can tell. Either that or it was always a charade, and their high-sounding rhetoric was just sucker-bait for the rubes.

If These Things Can’t Be Asked…
Here’s where the rubber meets the road: If we cannot ask these questions, confident that we’ll be met with reason and proportion, we’re living in a tyranny.

What appears to be happening is an illogical statement being writ very large. This is the statement:
Some people broke into the capitol and a few windows were broken, therefore our lives are in danger and we must stomp out all evildoers.
Any connection between the first part of that sentence and the second is uncertain and (as best I can tell) unproven. And yet, the responses to January 6th treat it as completely verified.

And so, if these questions are not permissible, we are living in tyranny, and particularly under the tyranny of those who punish the asking.

So many times we see the true importance of things only once we lose them, and this moment has been revelatory in just that way: We can now see why free speech must be held sacrosanct.

Free speech is inherently oppositional to tyranny. It’s the canary in our coal mine. When we see free speech abandoned and punished, we can be certain that tyranny is upon us
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

DATA EXPERT: 200,000 Pennsylvania Ballots Were Modified After Election – A Sampling of 100,000 Arizona Ballots Show ‘Material Amount’ Aren’t Even Real People

By Joe Hoft
Published January 23, 2021 at 2:00pm
fraud-biden-election-fraud-600x376.jpg

There was fraud everywhere in the 2020 election and to not address this is to destroy the future of our children while stomping on the graves of those who died for this country.


We’ve pointed out literally a million invalid ballots which were included in the ‘certified’ results in the 2020 election in three states alone:


The Democrats want to punish you for discussing this massive fraud and the Republicans want to say it didn’t happen. What is wrong with this picture?

Now today, we have a copy of the letter from data analyst Bobby Piton to the Arizona legislature in December. Remember, Piton testified in front of the Arizona legislature about the blatant fraud in that state and bet his life on the results.


Today can report on a letter Piton sent to the Arizona legislature in December.

He pointed out that more that 50% of a sample of 1,000 voters in the 2020 election were not real people. The sample came from a list of 100,000 voters in the 2020 election in Arizona.

Pitton also notes that 200,000 Pennsylvania ballots were edited the day after the election. The letter from Bobby Piton to the Arizona legislature is below:
12112020 AZ Legislature Letter by Jim Hoft on Scribd

The Arizona legislature did pass a motion to forensically audit the votes in Maricopa County, the most populous county in the state which includes Phoenix. But now the Board of Supervisors are attempting to prevent a ‘real’ audit from the likes of Jovan Hutton Pulitzer and instead have their choice of auditor perform the audit.

The efforts to prevent the people of Arizona from knowing the truth about the results of the 2020 election continue.

Please contact Arizona’s Legislature and let them know you want Jovan Hutton Pulitzer to perform the forensic audit in Maricopa County of the ballots from the election. Americans and Arizonians deserve the truth.

 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Were Pelosi, McConnell warned of potential violence before Capitol riot? Offices remain mum

Representatives of the Speaker of the House and Senate Republican Leader are also silent on whether the leaders weighed in on having National Guard troops bolster security at the Capitol prior to the events of Jan. 6.

By Nicholas Ballasy and Susan Katz Keating
Updated: January 22, 2021 - 9:05am

The offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell won't say whether the congressional leaders were briefed on potential violence ahead of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol — or whether they weighed in on requesting help from the National Guard to bolster Capitol security.

Just the News reached out to representatives for Pelosi and asked if the speaker was briefed about threats of violence in advance of the rally. Her office was also asked if the speaker favored or opposed having National Guard troops help Capitol Police to protect the Capitol Building before the rally. Her office didn't provide a response.

McConnell's press office was asked the same questions, but they did not return a request for comment.

Security sources told Just the News that Pelosi's staff was briefed on threats of violence, but it is unclear if Pelosi herself was briefed directly or indirectly on the situation.

In a timeline of events from the Pentagon, defense officials wrote that U.S. Capitol Police twice said that they did not need help from the military. According to the timeline, Capitol Police confirmed that stance to Defense Department officials and to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy.

U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund reportedly asked House and Senate security officials if they wanted National Guard troops to assist the Capitol Police in protecting the Capitol complex in advance of the Jan. 6 rally. According to The Washington Post, House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said he was not in support of declaring an emergency ahead of the rally. Sund and Irving have since resigned.

President Trump delivered remarks at a pro-Trump rally before the riot at the U.S. Capitol. The Democratic-led House of Representatives passed an article of impeachment against former President Trump last week for "incitement of insurrection."

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has raised questions about the events leading up to the Jan. 6 riot.

"We should get to the bottom of this," McCarthy said on Thursday. "There are so many questions that need to be answered. There are so many questions that I have personally as a leader. I read in the paper that the FBI, prior to any rally, had information that something was going to happen here and conveyed that to the Capitol Police. I want to know why was the Republican leader not notified of that? Why was I not notified to make sure that we protect?"
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Justice Department, FBI debate not charging some of the Capitol rioters

Rioters clash with police outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.

Rioters clash with police outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. (Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/For The Washington Post)
By
Devlin Barrett and
Spencer S. Hsu
Jan. 23, 2021 at 6:21 p.m. UTC

Federal law enforcement officials are privately debating whether they should decline to charge some of the individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol this month — a politically loaded proposition but one alert to the practical concern that hundreds of such cases could swamp the local courthouse.

The internal discussions are in their early stages, and no decisions have been reached about whether to forgo charging some of those who illegally entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.

Justice Department officials have promised a relentless effort to identify and arrest those who stormed the Capitol that day, but internally there is robust back-and-forth about whether charging them all is the best course of action.

That debate comes at a time when officials are keenly sensitive that the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI are at stake in such decisions, given the apparent security and intelligence failures that preceded the riot, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss legal deliberations.

Federal officials estimate that roughly 800 people surged into the building, though they caution that such numbers are imprecise, and the real figure could be 100 people or more in either direction.

The Post obtained hours of video footage, some exclusively, and placed it within a digital 3-D model of the building. (TWP)

Among those roughly 800 people, FBI agents and prosecutors have so far seen a broad mix of behavior — from people dressed for military battle, moving in formation, to wanton vandalism, to simply going with the crowd into the building.

Due to the wide variety of behavior, some federal officials have argued internally that those people who are known only to have committed unlawful entry — and were not engaged in violent, threatening or destructive behavior — should not be charged, according to people familiar with the discussions.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Jan. 22 announced the National Security Council will build new capability to focus on domestic extremism. (The Washington Post)

Other agents and prosecutors have pushed back against that suggestion, arguing that it is important to send a forceful message that the kind of political violence and mayhem on display Jan. 6 needs to be punished to the full extent of the law, so as to discourage similar conduct in the future.

There are a host of other factors complicating the discussions, many of which center not around the politics of the riot, but the real-world work of investigators and prosecutors, these people said.

The Justice Department has already charged more than 135 individuals with committing crimes in or around the Capitol building, and many more are expected to be charged in the coming weeks and months. By mid-January, the FBI had already received more than 200,000 tips from the public about the riot, in addition to news footage and police officer testimony.

“There is absolute resolve from the Department of Justice to hold all who intentionally engaged in criminal acts at the Capitol accountable,” Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi said in an email. “We have consistently made clear that we will follow the facts and evidence and charge individuals accordingly. We remain confident that the U.S. District Court for Washington, DC can appropriately handle the docket related to any resulting charges.”

The primary objective for authorities is to determine which individuals, if any, planned, orchestrated or directed the violence. To that end, the FBI has already found worrying linkages within such extremist groups as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters, and is looking to see if those groups coordinated with each other to storm the building, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Prosecutors have signaled they are looking to bring charges of seditious conspiracy against anyone who planned and carried out violence aimed at the government — a charge that carries a maximum possible prison sentence of 20 years.

But even as Justice Department officials look to bring those types of cases, they privately acknowledge those more determined and dangerous individuals may have operated within a broader sea of people who rushed through the doors but didn’t do much else, and prosecutors will ultimately have to decide if all of those lesser offenders should be charged.

Officials insisted they are not under pressure in regards to timing of decisions about how to handle those type of cases. For one thing, investigators are still gathering evidence, and agents could easily turn up additional photos or online postings that show a person they initially believed was harmless had, in fact, encouraged or engaged in other crimes.

Investigators also expect that some of those charged in the riot will eventually cooperate and provide evidence against others, and that could change their understanding of what certain people said or did that day, these people said.
Nevertheless, these people said, some in federal law enforcement are concerned that charging people solely with unlawful entry, when they are not known to have committed any other bad acts, could lead to losses if they go to trial.

“If an old man says all he did was walk in and no one tried to stop him, and he walked out and no one tried to stop him, and that’s all we know about what he did, that’s a case we may not win,” one official said.

Another official noted most of those arrested so far have no criminal records.
Meanwhile, defense lawyers for some of those charged are contemplating something akin to a “Trump defense” — that the president or other authority figures gave them permission or invited them to commit an otherwise illegal act.
“If you think of yourself as a soldier doing the bidding of the commander in chief, you don’t try to hide your actions. You assume you will be held up as a hero by the nation,” criminal defense lawyers Teri Kanefield and Mark Reichel wrote last week.

Such a defense might not forestall charges but could be effective at trial or sentencing. Trump’s looming impeachment trial in the Senate will also focus further attention on his actions and raise questions about the culpability of followers for the misinformation spread by leaders around bogus election-fraud claims rejected by courts and state voting officials.

“It’s not a like a bunch of people gathered on their own and decided to do this, it’s not like a mob. It’s people who were asked to come by the president, encouraged to come by the president, and encouraged to do what they did by the president and a number of others,” said one attorney representing defendants charged in the breach who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss legal strategy.

Prosecutors have other options. For rioters with no previous criminal records or convictions and whose known behavior inside the Capitol was not violent or destructive, the government could enter into deferred plea agreements, a diversion program akin to pretrial probation in which prosecutors agree to drop charges if a defendant commits no offenses over a certain time period.

Such a resolution would not result in even a misdemeanor conviction, and has been used before in some cases involving individuals with a history of mental illness who were arrested for jumping the White House fence. Criminal defense attorneys note there may be further distinctions between individuals who may have witnessed illegal activity or otherwise had reason to know they were entering a restricted area, and those for whom prosecutors can’t show such awareness.

There is also a question over whether charging all of the rioters could swamp the federal court system. In 2019, D.C. federal courts recorded only about 430 criminal cases, and fewer than 300 last year, when the legal system slowed significantly due to the pandemic. Many of those cases, however, had multiple defendants.

The workload of prosecuting the rioters could be eased if some of the cases were farmed out to other U.S. attorney offices around the country, but so far D.C. prosecutors have shown no interest in doing so. The law generally requires that individuals be prosecuted in the district in which a crime occurred.

“The crime happened here. Prosecutors and judges can see the crime scene from their office windows. I find it strange anyone would suggest it be done anywhere else,” a person familiar with the investigation said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an internal debate.

Beyond all the evidence-gathering and charging decisions left to do, federal officials concede there will likely be some number of people who were there that day and are simply never identified, due to some combination of luck, masks or lack of social media posts.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

‘Zip Tie Guy’ Who Invaded the Capitol with His Mom Ordered Released Before Trial
Jan 22nd, 2021, 1:55 pm


Eric-Gavelek-Munchel-via-Win-McNamee_Getty-Images.jpg

Spotted at the U.S. Capitol insurrection with his mother and hopping around the Senate while holding tactical restraints, so-called “zip tie guy” Eric Gavelek Munchel’s image was blasted around the world on Jan. 6—as the chilling portrait of what might have happened if rioters found any politicians as they marauded through the building.

On Friday afternoon, Munchel was ordered released on bail by a federal judge anyway.

“In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention before trial is an exception,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley announced in explaining his decision.
“I asked the government point blank what [any potential] danger was and they referred to his ‘radicalization’ and the views that he holds” and “his prior actions” in Washington, D.C., the judge noted.

“The court believes that in light of this, Mr. Munchel does not pose an obvious and clear danger to the safety of this community.”

A major factor in his decision, Frensley said, was Munchel’s “apparent and clear respect for law enforcement.”

The judge admitted that this was “counterintuitive” because of the video evidence showing Munchel joining a marauding mob trying to disrupt the certification of a free, fair and lawful election—but Frenlsey contrasted that with multiple videos showing Munchel being deferential to police officers.

“Mr. Munchel is entitled to his opinions,” the judge went on to note. “They are protected by the Constitution. He doesn’t have a right to do what he did, but that’s an issue for another day.”

“Release is appropriate,” the judge ruled, finding that he could impose conditions to protect the community from Munchel until his trial.

“Munchel will be released,” Frensley added, though whether that will actually occur remains an open question.

After several minutes of back-and-forth and another recess, the judge, at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice, temporarily stayed his ruling until 10 a.m. on Monday, Jan. 24. So, while Munchel was ordered released by the court, he will not be able to actually leave until Monday afternoon at the earliest—unless another judge intervenes. That has happened before in Capitol riot cases, such as in the case of U.S. Army Reservist Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a white supremacist who pined for “War. Civil War.”

Judge Frensley said that hoped Munchel had learned something through all of this, giving the government limited time to change his mind.

Another rioter seen carrying flexicuffs, former U.S. Airman Larry Brock, was previously granted bail even though his prosecutors claimed he aimed to take hostages. Federal prosecutors tried in vain to forestall the same fate with Munchel.

For more than three hours, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Schrader pushed to keep Munchel behind bars by repeatedly quoting his boast to a reporter from The Sunday Times that he was ready to “rise up” and “fight if necessary.” He also announced, well before making the formal stay request, that the prosecution would appeal any order of release.

The Getty photograph of Munchel hopping over a banister of the U.S. Senate on Jan. 6 carrying plastic restraints and a Taser chilled many observers, including federal prosecutors.

“There is every reason to think the defendant and his mother would have put those flexicuffs to use if they found lawmakers,” Schrader said.

Judge Frensley described his “visceral” reaction to the footage.

“I have to say that from an emotional standpoint, Mr. Schrader’s arguments have a lot of appeal,” the judge said.

Munchel’s attorney Caryll S. Alpert called it “unfortunate” that the image made her client the “poster child” of the event but that he should be viewed as an individual, not the mob.

“Isn’t that the risk when you make yourself a part of that mob?” Judge Frensley asked.

Offering a surprising defense, Alpert claimed that her client went into the Capitol to protect his mother, Lisa Eisenhart, who made the decision to follow that mob. She found some support for that interpretation in cross-examining an FBI agent.

“Most of what Munchel was doing was following his mother around?” Alpert asked.

“Correct,” the FBI agent responded.

Prosecutors emphasized that both were quoted with deadly serious intentions upon entering the Capitol.

“****ing ready to **** shit up,” Munchel’s allegedly told his mother.

Questioning whether the remark was bluster, Judge Frensley pressed the prosecutor: “Is there any evidence that he ‘****ed any shit up’?”

Schrader replied that he has no evidence Munchel destroyed property, but the prosecutor noted that there was no reason to think that his extreme views have changed now that Joe Biden is president.

“You’re not suggesting that we detain him simply because he has views, right?” the judge asked.

“Of course not,” Schrader quickly responded, but he added that detention was necessary because Munchel had acted upon those beliefs in the “most extraordinary way I can conceive.”

Court papers describe the preparations of the duo, decked out in tactical gear, at length.

“After the rally concluded, Munchel—who was dressed in tactical gear and carried a taser on his hip, and stashed other ‘weapons’ in a tactical bag outside the Capitol—unlawfully entered the U.S. Capitol along with a mob of rioters who smashed windows and broke through doors,” Schrader wrote in a 23-page brief.

“Munchel gleefully acquired several sets of plastic handcuffs as he walked through the Capitol and entered the Senate chamber, where only moments earlier the Vice President of the United States was certifying the results of the 2020 Presidential election.”

Prosecutors say that Munchel and his mother left most of their weapons outside the Capitol, but mostly for fear that carrying them inside would be a one-way ticket to federal prison.

“In the Senate gallery, Munchel stood with a crowd whose members shouted ‘Treason!’ and lamented the disappearance of lawmakers from the chamber moments earlier,” the prosecution’s brief continues.

Munchel himself was quoted shouting “I want that ****ing gavel,” upon entering the gallery.

Four days after the riots, the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force executed a search warrant upon Munchel’s home in Nashville, and authorities claim that they located the items that he wore during the Capitol siege: the tactical vest with a “Punisher” comic book and Tennessee “thin blue line” patches; a baseball cap depicting a rifle and a flag; and five pairs of white plastic handcuffs.
Screen-Shot-2021-01-22-at-12.39.56-PM.png

“Agents located a black Stack-On safe, standing approximately 5 feet tall, inside that bedroom,” the brief continues. “Inside a closet in the bedroom, agents also located a .22 caliber revolver. Agents also located dozens of rounds of ammunition inside the bedroom, along with multiple empty and full magazines.”
Court papers say that authorities found another stash of weapons once they opened the safe.

During the hearing, an FBI agent testified about the 15 firearms recovered from his house, including assault rifles, a sniper rifle with a tripod, other rifles, shotguns, and pistols, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, pictures of which were in court records.

Screen-Shot-2021-01-22-at-12.43.17-PM.png

A video on Munchel’s phone shows him and his mother Eisenhart mingling around with Oathkeeper militants, prosecutors say.

“One of the Oathkeepers says, ‘There’s 65 more of us coming,'” the brief states. “Munchel, when he recognizes them, says in affirmation, ‘Oathkeepers,’ and bumps fists with one of the men.”

This is how prosecutors describe Muchel and Eisenhart’s approach to the building:
“As Munchel and Eisenhart approach the Capitol, a man can be heard shouting, ‘Congress is shut down! Tear gas packages thrown in the Congress!’ Eisenhart exclaims, ‘They got tear-gassed, mother****ers!
Oh my God. That is [unintelligible] my best day, to know that they got tear-gassed.’ Other people in the crowd can be heard screaming, “**** that, this is our house!”As MUNCHEL and Eisenhart crawl through a broken metal guardrail outside the Capitol, MUNCHEL can also be heard saying, “Hell yeah, baby!”
The court summarily dismissed most of the government’s arguments made throughout the course of the marathon session–including Munchel’s alleged affinity for the far-right anti-government militia, determining that the implication simply wasn’t enough.

But Frensley previously showed his hand during a blistering interrogation of Schrader during the government’s closing argument.

“Is there any evidence that he fought anyone?” the judge asked. The government conceded there was none.

Frensely then asked Schrader whether there was any evidence Munchel negatively interacted with law enforcement during the siege. The government attorney paused then claimed that Munchel’s mother shouted at a cop with her boy at her side but again conceded that there was no evidence Munchel himself did that or anything similar.

Then the judge gave the game away.

He noted that the identification of Munchel prior to the FBI’s arrest warrant being issued was strictly due to the efforts of “private citizens” on social media.
But he technically phrased this in the form of a question. After a long pause, Schrader answered: “Correct.”

Frensley added that if Munchel immediately turned himself in, there wouldn’t have been anything to turn himself in for because there wasn’t an active criminal case until several days later. This statement was also delivered with all the tone of a question but the content told the real story.

Another “correct” followed another long pause from the government on that front as well.

At another point, Frensley appeared more than askance there was any “future danger” from the defendant and asked the government if that was what they were arguing.

Slightly exasperated, Schrader said “I don’t know what form that will take,” but insisted that Munchel’s conduct and beliefs should be considered together.
The judge also sounded aghast when the government attorney said the video evidence was all the court needed to deny the bail request.

Frensley, his voice rising, said the video evidence is what the government needs to sentence him with and that such evidence isn’t what the court, during a detention hearing, is supposed to make a decision on when considering a bail request.

“Why is that enough?” he asked the assistant U.S. Attorney.

“People died, okay? People died!” Schrader all-but shouted back. “The conduct of that video speaks volumes about what Mr. Munchel is willing to do.”

“I won’t disagree that it’s shocking conduct,” the judge said–but he clearly disagreed with the legal argument.

Though today’s hearing took place in the Middle District of Tennessee, Munchel’s case will later be transferred to a federal court in Washington, D.C. His defense attorney promised that her client would stay with his second “mom,” who did not participate in the insurrection, if and when he is eventually released.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
hough today’s hearing took place in the Middle District of Tennessee, Munchel’s case will later be transferred to a federal court in Washington, D.C. His defense attorney promised that her client would stay with his second “mom,” who did not participate in the insurrection, if and when he is eventually released.
Bail may be enough to assure his participation in a trial. After all, his second "mom" is likely the source of the money, and he would lose his meal ticket if he didn't show.

We'll see what Obama appointee judge will be assigned the case.

Dobbin
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

HELP ENSURE A LEGITIMATE AUDIT: Contact These Arizona Officials to Demand a Deep Dive Audit of Arizona’s Maricopa County Election Results!

By Joe Hoft
Published January 23, 2021 at 9:22pm
Arizona-Stop-the-Steal-600x315.jpg

The Gateway Pundit previously reported on the situation in Maricopa County Arizona. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors finally agreed to a forensic analysis of the county’s 2020 election results on Inauguration Day.


The Maricopa officials want to choose the auditors for a forensic analysis of the county’s 2020 election results. That way they can control the audit results by choosing a company that will give them the result they desire. Steve Bannon had Arizona activist Liz Harris on Saturday morning to discuss the latest developments.

Liz Harris is concerned that the audit in Maricopa County requested by the Arizona legislature will be performed by a firm complicit with the election issues and likely fraud in Maricopa County. We reported this on Friday:



At the 30:00 minute marker in the video below, Steve Bannon discusses the Maricopa County situation with Liz Harris, a concerned voter in the state:

Rumble video on website 48:28 min

A legitimate forensic audit of Maricopa County should be performed.

No more games from gangsters trying to cover up election fraud should be allowed. Maricopa County of Arizona is about to do a superficial audit where the auditors are connected to Dominion Voting Systems. Liz Harris asked everyone to pressure three specific legislatures (information for contacting at around the 35 minute marker). The three names and phone numbers to pressure for a DEEP AUDIT performed using the JOVAN POLITZER Method.

These politicians need to be contacted below:

Senator Karen Fann – 602-926-5874
Senator Warren Peterson – 602-926-4136
Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita – 602-926-4480

We believe data specialist Jovan Pulitzer is an expert who should perform an independent audit of the county’s results:


Let’s make sure Arizona’s election results are properly audited and counted. We can do this by encouraging the state authorities to used Jovan Pulitzer to perform the forensic audit in the state.

[Comment: I was dismayed and angered by Steve Bannon's push back on the lady (Harris) pushing for their choice of auditors in the AZ process. The Arizona GOP people want Col. Phil Waldron and Jovan Hutton Pulitzer to do a deep dive audit. Harris said Maricopa wants to use their auditors, Steve pushed back saying no, you need neither. You need an impartial auditor.

Steve is wrong. He has a bug up his ass about machine auditing because he thinks Powell and Wood took that off the rails with the thing about Hammer and Scorecard, Venezuela, the Frankfort Germany raid and foreign involvement.

The big deal about Jovan Pulitzer, is that he is an inventor who holds patents on technology. He has invented a rapid process to audit original physical ballots for fraud That is unique. It can show on supposed mail-in ballots whether:


(1) The ballot has a Kinematic artifact on the paper showing that it was folded and passed through mail processing machines

1611466388476.png

(2) The ballot was marked by a human or pre-marked by machine

1611467651045.png

(3) The ballot was printed so that it is skewed/off center and cannot be read by the ballot tabulator. This causes the tabulator to kick it out, requiring it to be manually adjudicated. (A human must interpret the ballot like they would a "spoiled ballot" that had been torn or had coffee spilled on it.) In some precincts, (seemingly high Republican ones,) an extraordinary number of ballots were kicked out requiring manual adjudication. It appears that this was an intentional issue providing opportunity for changing the vote. This would not be caught in a simple audit.
1611466850089.png

(4) Other ballot irregularities:

1611467340084.png

(5) Can also tell if the paper and ink were made in China,

View: https://www.facebook.com/JovanHuttonPulitzer/videos/696458697726914

2:02 min

The importance of Jovan's process is that it can provide evidential grounds for knocking out a vote as an unlawful ballot- removing it from the (Biden) column. It could be used for standing in court (injury to plaintiff Trump, ) remedy - altering the vote count and could be used in the impeachment trial as evidence that fraud had been committed.)
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment
The DOJ Is Considering Not Prosecuting 800 Non-Violent Trump Supporters for Trespassing in US Capitol

The DOJ Is Considering Not Prosecuting 800 Non-Violent Trump Supporters for Trespassing in US Capitol

By Joe Hoft
Published January 24, 2021 at 7:10am
jan-6-At-the-Capital.jpg

The DOJ is debating whether to charge Trump supporters for committing crimes on January 6th at the US Capitol.

Around 800 who were inside the US Capitol were just trespassing and were non-violent. They were unarmed and did not know what they were doing was a crime.

Hundreds were let in by the Capitol Police.

On January 6th 2020 as President Trump was still giving his speech at the Ellipse by the White House, Vice President Mike Pence announced that he was going to ignore the crimes involved in the 2020 election. At about the same time, members of far left Antifa and Boogaloo Bois showed up at the US Capitol and began confronting police. The crowd managed to storm the US Capitol.

Hundreds of Trump supporters were allowed into the building by police who were seen opening doors to the giant crowd outside. Numerous Trump supporters followed the more violent protesters into the Capitol.

The Capitol police at this time was pepper spraying people without warning and began shooting flash bangs and tear gas into the crowd.

Four Trump supporters were killed during the siege. One unarmed veteran was shot by a Capitol policeman who still remains unnamed. We still know little about what happened to those four other Americans including a US Capitol police officer who died that day:


It is clear today that Antifa activists were there at the Capitol causing damage and celebrating the violence. We also know that a CNN reporter was with the Antifa goons running through the Capitol:


Look for the DOJ to charge hundreds of protesters to set an example to the American people. Many of the protesters were let in and may not have known what they were doing was illegal. And look for the mainstream media to continue to compare the siege to terrorist attacks.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Expert Michael Yon Looked for Cells at Capitol Protests and Immediately Identified Antifa and Others

By Joe Hoft
Published January 24, 2021 at 2:10pm
Jan-6-Capital-Cops-Shooting-Pepper-Spray.jpg

Expert Michael Yon confirms again that Antifa very much led the attack at the Capitol on January 6th.

We reported Yon’s work before at both the US Capitol during the January 6th demonstrations and in Hong Kong during the freedom protests:


Author Michael Yon again reported that Antifa clearly led the attack and his report was discussed on the Morgan Streetman Show:

View: https://youtu.be/tQdecyBHqNU
7:45 min

Yon also was on OAN where he shared this same information and arguments with Jack Posobiec.

Yon told Jack Posobiec he saw “clear and Antifa and BLM” entering the US Capitol and getting arrested since that time.

The entire Capitol attack was infiltrated by Antifa and other radicals to make the President and his followers look bad.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
[COMMENT: Report is several pages long. Please go to link to continue.]


Covert Cadre: What I saw leading up to the US Capitol attack
January 13, 2021J. Michael Waller

The deadly riot at the US Capitol bore the markings of an organized operation planned well in advance of the January 6 joint session of Congress.
A small number of cadre used the cover of a huge rally to stage its attack. Before it began, I saw from my vantage point on the West Front of the Capitol, what appeared to be four separate cells or units:
  1. Plainclothes militants. Militant, aggressive men in Trump and MAGA gear at a front police line at the base of the temporary presidential inaugural platform;
  2. Agents-provocateurs. Scattered groups of men exhorting the marchers to gather closely and tightly toward the center of the outside of the Capitol building and prevent them from leaving;
  3. Fake Trump protesters. A few young men wearing Trump or MAGA hats backwards and who did not fit in with the rest of the crowd in terms of their actions and demeanor, whom I presumed to be Antifa or other leftist agitators; and
  4. Disciplined, uniformed column of attackers. A column of organized, disciplined men, wearing similar but not identical camouflage uniforms and black gear, some with helmets and GoPro cameras or wearing subdued Punisher skull patches.
All of these cells or groups stood out from the very large crowd by their behavior and overall demeanor. However, they did not all appear at the same time. Not until the very end did it become apparent there was a prearranged plan to storm the Capitol building, and to manipulalte the unsuspecting crowd as cover and as a follow-on force.

Eyewitness account, with no outside details
This article is a first-person, eyewitness account drafted the night of January 6 and morning of January 7, so it is not affected by other news coverage or information. The only research aids used in this article were photos and videos that I took from my phone. I have witnessed and participated in scores of protests since the 1970s, when as a high school student I was trained by professional agitators from California. Apart from my own professional background and experience, nothing in this article is derived from any third-party information or analysis.

In editing this for publication, I fought the temptation to add new information that I had subsequently learned from my own or from other people’s accounts. Other reports will vary and may contain contradicting information, and will contain far more facts than appear here. Many well-known actions and developments reported in the news do not appear here, as this is purely what I saw and understood between about 11:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 6.

Capitol Police anti-riot unit prepared early, but presence was light
Originally I had planned not to attend any of the several pro-Trump protest events scheduled for that day. At the last minute, a companion and I decided to see what we could see. Late that morning, at about 11:30, I walked from near Union Station to the Senate side of Capitol Hill on 2nd and D Streets NW and noticed a small number of Capitol Police dressed in full riot gear, with shin guards and shoulder guards. One carried a black baton with side handle. “That’s old school,” I called to the officer, giving him a thumbs-up. The police appeared to be readying to board a van or bus, though the Capitol was only 2-1/2 blocks away.

I crossed behind the Russell Senate Office Building to Constitution Avenue near the Capitol, past some out-of-towners who pointed at the Capitol and asked if it was the White House, then walked for about 25 minutes up Pennsylvania Avenue toward an empty Freedom Park.

A rally had just taken place there and moved to the Ellipse, the large lawn between the White House and Constitution Avenue NW. President Trump was speaking to a huge crowd at the Ellipse, though the Freedom Park rally had broken up to assemble at the Capitol before we arrived.

For such a massive event, police presence was light. District of Columbia police and a small group of DC National Guard had a relaxed demeanor, keeping a professional distance from marchers and other pedestrians as they usually do. A few police and National Guard gathered in around a mobile device to listen to the president make what sounded like rousing comments.

Crowd was energized and festive, not angry or incited
A while later we saw from a block away that marchers had begun down Constitution Avenue from the Ellipse to Capitol Hill, mostly along Constitution Avenue. We passed down 13th Street to join them. Although the march was in protest of electoral fraud in the 2020 election and people were recounting the president’s energizing speech, the mood of the crowd was positive and festive.

Strangers stopped to talk to one another along the way, resist but ultimately give in to offers from street vendors hawking Trump and MAGA memorabilia, or to take pictures of the Washington landmarks.

Some along the way talked enthusiastically about President Trump joining them on Capitol Hill, as if he had said something about it in his Ellipse speech. I didn’t want to pop their balloon by saying that he undoubtedly would not. There was an expectation in the air that he would be there.

Of the thousands of people I passed or who passed me along Constitution Avenue, some were indignant and contemptuous of Congress, but not one appeared angry or incited to riot. Many of the marchers were families with small children; many were elderly, overweight, or just plain tired or frail – traits not typically attributed to the riot-prone. Some said they were police officers from around the country. Many wore pro-police shirts or carried pro-police “Back the Blue” flags.

Diverse cross-section of America
Among the hundreds and hundreds of flags – perhaps thousands – displayed over the next few hours, I saw only two Confederate battle flags and one white supremacist sign, the latter of which some suspected aloud was a leftist plant. The two flags and one sign, I thought, would feature prominently in news media reports to present a false image of the nature of the crowd.

A large group of African-American men sported shirts that said “Blacks for Trump.” Figuring that journalists would emphasize the solitary racist sign and Confederate flags, deliberately ignoring the rest, I took note of the fact that many demonstrators were black, Asian, and Latino, with a strong presence of Vietnamese- and Chinese-Americans.

Respect for the city and streets
The DC government had placed only one portable toilet along the 16-block Constitution Avenue route, and five more near the intersection with Pennsylvania Avenue near the Canadian Embassy. The federal government opened the Ronald Reagan Building so people could use the bathrooms.

The city had provided few trash bins. (DC usually provides a large number of toilets and trash receptacles along march routes.) Yet remarkably little litter could be seen in the streets. People crushed their plastic water bottles and food wrappers and stuffed them in their pockets, and a few marchers picked up the occasional trash along the route.

Observations about the toilets and trash are noteworthy because, in my experience with and among large protest crowds in Washington, the large leftist crowds tend to be angry and leave trash in the streets and urine in the shrubs.
None of that anger showed in the January 6 crowd along Constitution Avenue.

The exceptions: Organized cadre
Although the crowd represented a broad cross-section of Americans – mostly working class by their appearance and manner of speech (the Deplorables from Flyover Country, as an old politician once called them) – some people stood out.
A very few didn’t share the jovial, friendly, earnest demeanor of the great majority. Some obviously didn’t fit in. Among them were younger twentysomethings wearing new Trump or MAGA hats, often with the visor in the back, showing no enthusiasm and either looking at the ground, or glowering, or holding out their phones with outstretched arms to make videos of as many faces as possible in the crowd. Some appeared awkward, the way someone’s body language inadvertently shows the world that he feel like he doesn’t fit in. A few seemed to be nursing a deep, churning rage.

They generally covered their faces with cloth masks, as opposed to the pro-Trump people, few of whom wore masks at all. They walked, often hands in pockets, in clusters of perhaps four to six with at least one of them frequently looking behind. These outliers group looked like trouble. I presumed that these fake Trump protesters were Antifa or something similar. However, that entire afternoon I saw none of them act aggressively or cause any problems. At least, not from my vantage point.

A second outlier group also stood out. While many marchers wore military camouflage shirts, jackets, or pants of various patterns and states of wear and in all shapes and sizes, here and there one would see people of a different type: Wiry young men in good physical condition dressed neatly in what looked like newer camouflage uniforms with black gear, subdued patches including Punisher skulls, and helmets.

[COMMENT: Report is several pages long. Please go to link to continue.]
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
More excerpts from the Morgan Streetman Show on the riots

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuFs8x-6tao
6:39 min
Was ANTIFA the instigator of the Capitol riot?
•Jan 13, 2021

The Morgan Streetman Show


___________________________________________________

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9VnkSSk-BA
8:38 min
Who is benefiting from the staged invasion of the U.S. Capitol?
•Jan 14, 2021

___________________________________________________

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBDpTcx57dM
3:53 min
Left wing extremist Daniel Baker arrested for violent plot to murder Trump supporters and Police
•Jan 21, 2021

___________________________________________

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz3p2SL85W8
9:01 min
Antifa supporter John Earl Sullivan among the arrested at the U.S. Capitol riot
•Jan 22, 2021
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Nx9l8cFX4
1:04:15 min
SPOTTER UP | Ep 37. |The Capitol
•Streamed live on Jan 14, 2021


Spotter Up

On Episode 37 of SPOTTER UP, John Valentine is joined by famed war correspondent Michael Yon. John and Michael sit down to discuss what Mike watched during the protest and, subsequently, what happened during the capitol's storming.

They then discuss what this means for the future of the United States and their thoughts on the censorship and isolation of conservatives by large corporations.

Michael Yon (born 1964) is an American writer and photographer. He served in the Special Forces in the early-1980s, and he became a writer in the mid-1990s.

He focused on military writing after the invasion of Iraq. Yon has been embedded on numerous occasions with American and British troops in Iraq, most prominently a deployment with the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment (Deuce Four) of the 25th Infantry Division in Mosul, Iraq that ended in September 2005. Yon has had vocal feuds with the United States military hierarchy, and the nature of his reports is also controversial. However, according to Brian Williams of NBC, Yon enjoyed "rock star" status among individual soldiers.

Yon's alternative media reporting has been mentioned by numerous mainstream media agencies. He has won accolades from the 2005, 2007, and 2008 Weblog Awards. In 2008, The New York Times reported that he has spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist. He shifted the focus of his blogging from Iraq to Afghanistan in August 2008.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Accurate List of 2020 Election Fraud Cases Shows 81 Cases Total, 30 Still Active – And NOT ONE SINGLE COURT Has Allowed Evidence to be Argued

By Joe Hoft
Published January 24, 2021 at 10:51am
Supreme-Court-Fence-Screen-Image-YouTube-01102020.jpg

The 2020 election will go down as arguably the greatest fraud in world history. The tremendously popular incumbent candidate, President Trump, was easily winning the race on election night in a landslide and then suddenly multiple states took a break, quit counting, and by the end of the week the election was flipped to Joe Biden.

Then, as the President and his team attempted to address the fraud and alleged abnormalities, the courts refused in any case evidence to be brought before a court of law.


We’ve heard over and over from Big Media that President Trump and his team lost numerous court cases linked to the 2020 election. But this is not accurate.
Here’s what we identified from our research of an accurate and updated list of court cases:
  • There are 81 court cases to date based on the 2020 election
  • In 45 cases President Trump was the plaintiff
  • In 34 cases President Trump is not the plaintiff
  • In 2 cases President Trump is the defendant
  • In 72 cases illegal voting is alleged
  • In ZERO of the 72 cases where illegal voting is alleged has evidence been allowed to be presented
  • 30 cases remain active
Here is a link to the list of cases.

2020 Election Court Cases by Jim Hoft on Scribd

In the 2020 election:
  • Thousands of instances of fraud were alleged
  • Multiple states changed laws to provide for absentee ballots and the remedy is alleged to be not legal
  • The FBI to date has done nothing to review the alleged fraud
  • The DOJ denied any alleged material instances of fraud
  • The Democrats are accused of the alleged election fraud
  • The state legislatures certified their results with millions of ballots in question
  • The US Congress accepted these certified results which ignored the thousands of instances of election fraud
  • VP Mike Pence accepted the results despite state legislatures asking him to examine the results
And now we know the courts didn’t allow a single instance of evidence of fraud to be presented to date.

Americans are livid with the actions that took place in the 2020 election and believe the election was stolen. There are numerous reasons for this.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

SHOCKING: The Democrats’ First Bill of 2021 Is to Lock In Fraudulent Elections Forever

By Joe Hoft
Published January 24, 2021 at 12:50pm
democrats-communists-.jpg

The fraud in this past election was massive, the worst ever in recorded history, but it is nothing when compared to what the Democrat (Communist) Party has in store for the future of the USA and the world.

In their first act, this Congress led by true communists apparently, is ready to pass a bill allowing all future elections in the USA to be run exactly the same as any communist regime in history.

The Populist Press is reporting the first bill put together by this Pelosi-led Congress will eliminate free and fair elections forever. Fraud will be the mandate and Democrats, the kings of fraud, will win every election henceforth. The bill is labeled by the Communist Democrats – “For the People Act of 2021“.

Below are the key aspects of the bill as noted by the Populist Press:

Democrats introduce their first bill in the House: H.R.1 – The bill that will destroy America. Nationwide mail-in voting, banning restrictions on ballot harvesting, banning voter ID, criminal voters,DC Statehood roadwork, it’s all in here.
1) Internet-only registration with electronic signature submission.

(a) Requiring Availability Of Internet For Online Registration.—Each State, acting through the chief State election official, shall ensure that the following services are available to the public at any time on the official public websites of the appropriate State and local election officials in the State, in the same manner and subject to the same terms and conditions as the services provided by voter registration agencies under section 7(a):
“(1) Online application for voter registration.

2) Banning the requirement to provide a full SSN for voter registration.
SEC. 1005. PROHIBITING STATE FROM REQUIRING APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE MORE THAN LAST 4 DIGITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
(a) Form Included With Application For Motor Vehicle Driver’s License.—Section 5(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20504(c)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: “, and to the extent that the application requires the applicant to provide a Social Security number, may not require the applicant to provide more than the last 4 digits of such number;”.
3) Nationwide ‘Motor Voter’ registration.
Note that motor voter registration is how thousands of illegal became registered voters in California and Nevada.
(2) DEFINITION.—The term “automatic registration” means a system that registers an individual to vote in elections for Federal office in a State, if eligible, by electronically transferring the information necessary for registration from government agencies to election officials of the State so that, unless the individual affirmatively declines to be registered, the individual will be registered to vote in such elections.
4) 16 year olds required to be registered to vote.
(d) Treatment Of Individuals Under 18 Years Of Age.—A State may not refuse to treat an individual as an eligible individual for purposes of this part on the grounds that the individual is less than 18 years of age at the time a contributing agency receives information with respect to the individual, so long as the individual is at least 16 years of age at such time. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to require a State to permit an individual who is under 18 years of age at the time of an election for Federal office to vote in the election.
5) Nationwide same-day registration.
“(1) REGISTRATION.—Each State shall permit any eligible individual on the day of a Federal election and on any day when voting, including early voting, is permitted for a Federal election—
“(A) to register to vote in such election at the polling place using a form that meets the requirements under section 9(b) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (or, if the individual is already registered to vote, to revise any of the individual’s voter registration information); and
“(B) to cast a vote in such election.

6) Grants ($25M) for using minors in election activities.
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Election Assistance Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the “Commission”) shall make grants to eligible States to enable such States to carry out a plan to increase the involvement of individuals under 18 years of age in public election activities in the State.
7) More children voters.
“(k) Acceptance Of Applications From Individuals Under 18 Years Of Age.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may not refuse to accept or process an individual’s application to register to vote in elections for Federal office on the grounds that the individual is under 18 years of age at the time the individual submits the application, so long as the individual is at least 16 years of age at such time.
8) Prohibiting attempts to clean voter rolls of non-residents.
It’s this whole section, but in particular, this part below basically says nobody is allowed to request voter rolls to be cleaned up. ie: making it illegal to do what Tom Fitton was doing.
“(1) REQUIREMENTS FOR CHALLENGES.—No person, other than a State or local election official, shall submit a formal challenge to an individual’s eligibility to register to vote in an election for Federal office or to vote in an election for Federal office unless that challenge is supported by personal knowledge regarding the grounds for ineligibility which is—

9) Murderers and rapists can vote.
(1) NOTIFICATION.—On the date determined under paragraph (2), each State shall notify in writing any individual who has been convicted of a criminal offense under the law of that State that such individual has the right to vote in an election for Federal office pursuant to the Democracy Restoration Act of 2021 and may register to vote in any such election and provide such individual with any materials that are necessary to register to vote in any such election.
10) Mandatory early voting.
Note that I personally like early voting in Florida, but putting it here anyway.

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall allow individuals to vote in an election for Federal office during an early voting period which occurs prior to the date of the election, in the same manner as voting is allowed on such date.
11) THE BIG ONE – NATIONWIDE VOTE BY MAIL, BAN ON BALLOT PROTECTION MEASURES, LEGALIZED LIMITLESS BALLOT HARVESTING.
“SEC. 307. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL.
“(a) Uniform Availability Of Absentee Voting To All Voters.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—If an individual in a State is eligible to cast a vote in an election for Federal office, the State may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in such election by absentee ballot by mail.
“(2) ADMINISTRATION OF VOTING BY MAIL.—
“(A) PROHIBITING IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AS CONDITION OF OBTAINING BALLOT.—A State may not require an individual to provide any form of identification as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prevent a State from requiring a signature of the individual or similar affirmation as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot.
“(B) PROHIBITING REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NOTARIZATION OR WITNESS SIGNATURE AS CONDITION OF OBTAINING OR CASTING BALLOT.—A State may not require notarization or witness signature or other formal authentication (other than voter attestation) as a condition of obtaining or casting an absentee ballot.

“(2) PERMITTING VOTERS TO DESIGNATE OTHER PERSON TO RETURN BALLOT.—The State—
“(A) shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization provides compensation on this basis; and
“(B) may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.
12) Banning voter ID.

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (c), if a State has in effect a requirement that an individual present identification as a condition of receiving and casting a ballot in an election for Federal office, the State shall permit the individual to meet the requirement—
“(A) in the case of an individual who desires to vote in person, by presenting the appropriate State or local election official with a sworn written statement, signed by the individual under penalty of perjury, attesting to the individual’s identity and attesting that the individual is eligible to vote in the election; or
13) Roadwork for DC statehood and territory statehood.
The whole subtitle.

Subtitle C—Findings Relating To District Of Columbia Statehood
14) COMPLETE CONGRESSIONAL TAKEOVER OF REDISTRICTING.
Subtitle E—Redistricting Reform

(B) ENSURING DIVERSITY.—In appointing the 9 members pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), as well as in designating alternates pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) and in appointing alternates to fill vacancies pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4), the first members of the independent redistricting commission shall ensure that the membership is representative of the demographic groups (including racial, ethnic, economic, and gender) and geographic regions of the State, and provides racial, ethnic, and language minorities protected under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of the State’s redistricting plan.
I am running out of time and space, but please look at this section:
SEC. 3201. NATIONAL STRATEGY TO PROTECT UNITED STATES DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In General.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary, in consultation with the Chairman, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Education, the Director of National Intelligence, the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and the heads of any other appropriate Federal agencies, shall issue a national strategy to protect against cyber attacks, influence operations, disinformation campaigns, and other activities that could undermine the security and integrity of United States democratic institutions.
(b) Considerations.—The national strategy required under subsection
(a) shall include consideration of the following:
(1) The threat of a foreign state actor, foreign terrorist organization (as designated pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189)), or a domestic actor carrying out a cyber attack, influence operation, disinformation campaign, or other activity aimed at undermining the security and integrity of United States democratic institutions.
(3) Potential consequences, such as an erosion of public trust or an undermining of the rule of law, that could result from a successful cyber attack, influence operation, disinformation campaign, or other activity aimed at undermining the security and integrity of United States democratic institutions.
Literally forming a commission to effectively freeze anyone who says that the election was rigged.
The military must step in now and stop validating the election steal and end this Communist takeover of America!
(Hat tip Lawrence Sellin)
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Mitt Romney: It is “Constitutional” to Impeach a Private Citizen like Donald Trump

By Jim Hoft
Published January 24, 2021 at 11:28am
mitt-romney-sad.jpg

Trump-hater Mitt Romney went on CNN on Sunday to continue his attacks on President Trump.

During the conversation, Mitt assured CNN that impeaching a private citizen is constitutional.

Mitt added that President Trump’s “involvement” in the US Capitol riots is an impeachable offense.

President Trump is on record calling for a peaceful demonstration. For some reason, this is lost on Mitt.


CNBC reported:
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said on Sunday that former President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial is constitutional and that Trump’s alleged involvement in the U.S. Capitol riot is an impeachable offense.
“It’s pretty clear that the effort is constitutional,” Romney said during an interview on CNN. “I believe that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense. If not, what is?”
What will poor Mitt do now that Trump is out of office?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Romney suggests 'new faces' of post-Trump GOP: Christie, Cotton, Rubio, Sasse, Hogan, Baker
DAVID SHERFINSKI JANUARY 24, 2021
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, questions Secretary of State nominee Antony Blinken during his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of State before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2021. (Graeme Jennings/Pool via AP)
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, questions Secretary of State nominee Antony Blinken during his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of State before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2021. (Graeme Jennings/Pool via AP) more >

Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah said on “Fox News Sunday” that new faces of the Republican Party have the potential to flourish now that former President Trump is out of office.

He named Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska as potential spokespeople.

“So there will be some new faces,” Mr. Romney said. “President Trump, of course, will continue to have influence, but I think our party is going to return to some of our more fundamental principles, which is fiscal responsibility, believing in the importance of character, standing with our allies and pushing back against people like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin.”

On CNN, Mr. Romney also named former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas as potential leaders.

Mr. Romney said on Fox that Republicans need to do a better job communicating more effectively to working men and women in the country that their policies are best designed to help them and their families.

“That’s something I think we’ve missed, something I missed in my campaign,” said Mr. Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee. “I think that’s something that’s going to help define us going forward.”

Mr. Romney is currently on the outs with much of the GOP’s conservative base.

An early test of Mr. Trump’s influence came over the weekend when Kelli Ward, with the former president’s support, narrowly won a second term as chairwoman of the Arizona Republican Party.

President Biden defeated Mr. Trump in Arizona last year to become the first Democratic presidential candidate since 1996 to carry the state.

Democrats now hold both U.S. Senate seats in Arizona for the first time in close to 70 years after Sen. Mark Kelly’s win last year.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Iowa conspiracy theorist Doug Jensen stays in custody, ordered to DCAssociated Press

A right-wing conspiracy theorist from Iowa seen prominently in videos taunting a U.S. Capitol police officer and pursuing him upstairs inside the building during the Jan. 6 riot must remain in custody and will be taken soon to Washington to face charges, a federal judge said Friday.

Washington-based U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly halted the release of Douglas Jensen that had been ordered by a federal magistrate judge in Iowa on Thursday. The Iowa judge had allowed his release to home confinement in Des Moines next week with electronic monitoring by probation officers but gave the federal government time to appeal. After federal prosecutors appealed Friday afternoon, Kelly entered an order granting the government’s stay of Jensen’s release.

Washington prosecutors also asked the judge to order Jensen moved to the district, and Kelly issued another order that directed the U.S. Marshals to “transport the defendant forthwith from the Southern District of Iowa to the District of Columbia for further proceedings in this matter.”

Doug Jensen, a 41-year-old Des Moines man, is in custody in the Polk County Jail, and he's facing federal charges involving the Capitol riot.


Assistant U.S. Attorney James B. Nelson said in court documents that Jensen carried a knife in his pocket during the attack, and video showed him reaching into that pocket. Photos show a silver knife with a thick 3-inch blade.

Nelson said Jensen’s eagerness to travel more than 1,000 miles in hopes of hearing Donald Trump declare martial law and his willingness to take martial law into his own hands absent such pronouncement illustrate his danger.

Jensen served a year of probation for a 2015 domestic assault in Minnesota, and he was convicted of driving while drunk in 2007, court documents show. He was also convicted of theft in 2006 and has a conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance conviction in 2005.

ghows-MI-210109501-448ef64c.jpg


Nelson said in court documents that Jensen reported being a daily marijuana user.

“Releasing defendant from custody will only reinforce his belief that his cause is just. If nothing else, the events of January 6, 2021, have exposed the size and determination of right-wing fringe groups in the United States, and their willingness to place themselves and others in danger to further their political ideology. Anyone who would act as defendant acted, for the reasons he identified in support of his actions, is a per se danger to the community,” Nelson wrote.

Releasing Jensen while he awaits trial “creates a substantial risk of danger to the community,” he said.

Jensen’s involvement in the riot and invasion of the U.S. Capitol is undisputed, court documents say due to the widespread video coverage.

Jensen, 41, appeared in court for a detention hearing via video from the Polk County jail in Des Moines on Tuesday.

A grand jury indicted him on six counts, including obstructing law enforcement during a civil disorder, resisting Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman, violently entering and remaining in a restricted building, and disorderly conduct.

Jensen turned himself in to Des Moines police after seeing video coverage of the attack on the Capitol showing him in a QAnon shirt in the front of a shouting mob.

A second Iowa man arrested on Monday after publicly acknowledging taking part in the Capitol riot was released Tuesday afternoon and ordered to be monitored with a GPS device.

Leo Kelly, 35, of Cedar Rapids, is charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building and violent entry with intent to disrupt business at the Capitol. Earlier this week, a federal magistrate ordered him to travel to Washington only for official court business with permission from the U.S. Probation Office. He has a court hearing in Washington on Feb. 9.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Dillon man first in Montana to face charges in connection to Capitol siege
  • By FREDDY MONARES Bozeman Daily Chronicle
  • Jan 21, 2021

Henry Philip Muntzer

Henry Philip Muntzer
Courtesy of Missoula County jail

A Dillon, Montana, man has been charged in connection to the insurrection at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

Henry Phillip Muntzer, 52, is charged with unlawful entry or disorderly conduct and for being in a restricted building or on restricted grounds. Charges against Muntzer were filed Thursday in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Muntzer is the first Montanan to be charged in connection to the riot, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s website. He is being held at the Missoula County jail, according to its online jail roster.

Muntzer is accused of being one of hundreds of people who unlawfully entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 while Congress was meeting to certify the 2020 election results. Five people, including one Capitol police officer, were killed during the incident.

President Joe Biden, members of Congress and former president Donald Trump have denounced the violence and called the acts “un-American.” Biden has gone as far as calling people involved in storming the Capitol “domestic terrorists.”

The Dillon Tribune first broke news of Muntzer’s arrest on Wednesday. The weekly newspaper described him as well-known for the Q-Anon-supporting mural on his business, Dillon Appliance. Q-Anon is a baseless and convoluted conspiracy theory centering on Trump fighting against a child sex trafficking ring involving Democrats.
Dillon Appliance
A Qanon supporting mural on Dillon Appliance in Dillon, Montana, are shown in this Nov. 5, 2020, photo. Courtesy of Troy Carter

The Tribune also reported that Muntzer touted being at the riot on his Faceook page, which has been taken down.

In an affidavit, federal authorities described how the rioters made way into the Captiol building. Federal authorities said that sometime between 2 p.m. and no later than 4 p.m., Muntzer entered the Capitol building.

While inside, Muntzer gave an interview that was later posted on YouTube. Federal authorities said Muntzer was seen on MSNBC footage of the incident. A screenshot was included in the affidavit.

Muntzer posted to Facebook a video taken from the Capitol building, overlooking a balcony that officers were occupying.

Muntzer also posted a video taken from inside the Capitol building. Authorities said Muntzer could be heard saying that he was part of the group that “stormed the Capitol” and that the group was able to “push through Capitol police and enter several chambers.”

“I did not see anyone get hurt other than tear gas and pepper spray and I got sprayed a lot,” Muntzer said in the video. “We sent the message that we are not going to take it, we want our country back.”

An interview with Muntzer the day after the Capitol riot was posted on YouTube. Muntzer, who was wearing a blue jacket with “Hank” embroidered on it and gave his full name, said during the interview that he was inside the Capitol for about an hour.

An informant who recognized Muntzer tipped off the FBI that Muntzer lived in Dillon and owned a business there.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

"You're Forgetting Who You Are As A Journalist": Rand Paul Slams Stephanopoulos In Sunday Spat Over Election Integrity

SUNDAY, JAN 24, 2021 - 12:29
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to ABC on Sunday morning with George Stephanopoulos to discuss election integrity of the 2020 election, in a discussion which immediately devolved into an inquisition during which Paul was repeatedly pressed to disavow clams that the election was stolen.

Paul not only pushed back - he put Stephanopoulos in his place, accusing the host of 'inserting yourself in the middle' and 'forgetting who you are as a journalist.'


Stephanopoulos began by asking Paul to admit the "election was not stolen" - to which Paul responded by saying "The debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur. We never had any presentation in court where we ever looked at the evidence..."

Paul continued: "There were several states in which the law was changed by the Secretary of State and not the state legislature. To me those are clearly unconstitutional and I think there's still a chance those do finally work their way up to the Supreme Court."

"No election is perfect," Stephanopoulos shot back, telling Paul there were "86 challenges filed by President Trump, all were dismissed". As Paul tries to argue that many cases were dismissed for lack of standing and not due to examination of evidence, Stephanopoulos responds: "Can't you just say the words 'this election wasn't stolen'?"

'75% of Republicans want to look at election integrity,' Paul responds.

Stephanopoulos responds by saying that those 75% agree with him because they were "fed a big lie" from the President.

Paul pushed back, telling Stephanopoulos: "You immediately say everything's a lie instead of saying there's two sides to everything. Historically what would happen is if I said I thought there was fraud, you'd interview someone else who said there wasn't. But now you insert yourself in the middle and say that the absolute fact is that everything I'm saying is a lie."

"You're saying there's no fraud and it's all been investigated and that's just not true," Paul continues, with Stephanopoulos arguing at the same time. Paul then goes into specifics, detailing irregularities in states in like Wisconsin. "I plan on spending the next two years going around, state to state, fixing these problems," Paul continues. "Let's have an open debate. It's a free country!"

"There has been no thorough examination of all states to see what problems we had and see if we could fix them," Paul says, responding to Stephanopoulos' claims that Bill Barr pronounced there was "no widespread election fraud".
"There's two sides to every story," Paul says. "Interview someone on the other side, but don't insert yourself into the story to say we're all liars."

"You're forgetting who you are as a journalist if you think there's only one side," Paul says. "A journalist would hear both sides and there are two sides to this story."

You can watch the entire 6 minute exchange here:
Pressed repeatedly by @GStephanopoulos, Sen. Rand Paul won’t say the 2020 election wasn’t stolen, calls for investigation of fraud, but doesn’t provide evidence.

GS: “There are not two sides to this story. This has been looked at in every single state.” ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News, Headlines & Videos pic.twitter.com/DDufLZvwBB
— ABC News (@ABC) January 24, 2021
Election integrity aside, Paul has been a vocal critic of the Biden administration in recent days. On Saturday, we noted Paul's interview with Fox host Sean Hannity, where he pummeled the Biden administration's decision to push for a $15 minimum wage increase that could put 4 million people out of work - leading the Kentucky Republican to exclaim:
"'Why does Joe Biden hate Black teenagers?' ... Why does Joe Biden want to destroy all of these jobs?"
Paul comments come amid ramblings from various leftist economists who insist that there's no impact on employment from such a drastic minimum wage hike...

...common sense (and historical experience) for anyone who has ever run an actual business is that raising costs on the lowest-skilled workers in your organization will ripple all the way up, forcing either higher prices to the end-user (eradicating the 'living wage' improvement) and or forcing layoffs as management hold margins and reduce costs (the least-skilled first).

Historically speaking, the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites, while minimum wage increases - as we've shown repeatedly over the last week - correlate with spikes in job losses just about every single time.



That's not an "alternative" fact, that's the awkward reality of 'unintended consequences' from nanny-state intervention write large for the last 70 years.
Paul also blasted Biden for canceling the Keystone XL oil pipeline:
"It's kind of a strange beginning to an administration," Paul said.
"You're going to put your best foot forward and the first thing you say is, 'This is how I'm going to kill jobs' ... 'I'm going to kill thousands of jobs of the Keystone pipeline with ending it.'"
You can watch that full interview here:

View: https://youtu.be/x0zmmYMTMQc
6:33 min
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
canceling the Keystone XL oil pipeline:

You can watch that full interview here:

Whoh! Push back from Rubber Band Rand?

He must be looking for some "understanding" from the Democrats. Likely setting the hard seat down like he's going to sit in it, and meanwhile looking for the cushy "tit for tat" vote for his district.

Dobbin
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Huffington Post Reporter Pushed FALSE Capitol ‘Shooting’ Narrative During Protest

Did Matt Fuller's Tweet Incite Tensions?
Patrick Howley
by PATRICK HOWLEY
January 19, 2021

Huffington Post Reporter Pushed FALSE Capitol ‘Shooting’ Narrative During Protest

Huffington Post congressional reporter Matt Fuller wrote a viral tweet during the U.S. Capitol protest in which he falsely accused President Donald Trump’s supporters of firing guns into the body of the United States Congress. The tweet remained live for many hours after Fuller’s narrative was debunked. By that time, Fuller had been retweeted by top political figures. Will the mainstream media face scrutiny for pushing disinformation during a time of crisis? Fuller currently remains employed with the Huffington Post.

“They’re shooting into the chamber,” Fuller tweeted during the Capitol protest on January 6. Low-rated MSNBC host Chris Hayes drew attention to the false narrative by jumping in to exclaim in reply, “shooting what!?!?!?!” The construction of Fuller’s sentence made clear that he was accusing patriotic protesters of shooting into the chamber. In actuality, no protesters fired guns in the protest. Capitol Police shot unarmed protester and Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt in the neck and killed her, but that shooting did not take place in the Chamber. The photo Fuller shared showed law enforcement pointing guns but obviously no evidence of protesters firing shots.
shooting what!?!?!?!

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) January 6, 2021
Other journalists and media figures added to the hysteria in real time, based on Fuller’s tweet.

How on earth did they not have a huge force prepared for this. These terrorists *said* this was their plan. @MEPFuller just tweeted that "guns have been drawn." Now, "they're shooting into the chamber." People. The U.S. Capitol is in the midst of a terrorist attack.
— Bryan Smith (@bryrsmith) January 6, 2021
Fuller deleted the tweet but it is now archived for posterity. The tweet remained live after Fuller’s narrative was debunked, and was still live the next day.
A HuffPost reporter's tweet that "They're shooting into the chamber" is still up despite the fact that no protesters shot into anything and in fact the police gunned down a nice lady who was an Air Force veteran. Carry on.

— Patrick Howley (@HowleyReporter) January 7, 2021
Should Fuller face condemnation for his role in heightening tensions during the Capitol riot? Fuller’s Fake News — which he clearly posted with no regard whatsoever for the truth — helped dictate the media’s narrative that protesters were responsible for unspeakable violence, when in actuality the only shot fired came from a Capitol Police officer. Make no mistake: Fuller’s statement that “They’re shooting into the chamber” placed false blame on protesters outside the chamber. His message, when amplified by people in D.C. politics and media, was irresponsible at best.

The mainstream media is an arm of the crooked political establishment in Washington, D.C. Their sinister subversive narratives drive the globalist totalitarian takeover of the United States of America. The political class response to the Capitol protest signals acceleration on the part of the globalist authoritarians. Clearly, the Washington scribe media is happy to play their part.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
FORMER ADVISER: Trump May Start New Political Party, Will Become Country’s Greatest Champion for Election Integrity
‘We’ll give them a little bit of a transition period but this is critical and we have to do it.’
Frank Salvato
by FRANK SALVATO
January 23, 2021

REPORT: 140+ US Reps Expected To Object On January 6, Only Josh Hawley Confirmed In Senate
In his farewell address to the nation, President Donald Trump told the American people that the work of “Making America Great Again” had only just begun.

According to one of the former-President’s key advisors, Jason Miller, President Trump has a wide variety of initiatives he wants to flesh out, including the possibility of a new political entity. But nothing is bigger or more important than election integrity.

After traveling with the Trump’s in their final trip aboard Air Force One as the First Family, Miller said the former-President has some primary goals to accomplish over the next two years. Chief among those goals are “winning back the House and the Senate for Republicans in 2022 to make sure that we can stop the Democratic craziness.”
“Trump has a number of goals over the next couple of years … winning back the House and the Senate for Republicans in 2022 to make sure that we can stop the Democratic craziness,” said top #Trump adviser and former spokesperson @JasonMillerinDC.Top Trump Adviser Jason Miller Talks About Trump's Future Plans
— NTD News (@news_ntd) January 22, 2021
But Miller hit on perhaps President Trump’s most passionate goal. “You’re also going to see him emerge as the nation’s leader on ballot and voting integrity,” he said.

Miller said President Trump understands that election integrity reforms will never take place inside the beltway because Democrats and Progressives don’t believe the system is damaged; they don’t see any threat to America’s election process.
Instead, Miller said, President Trump will work around the partisan Washington insider apparatus to work with individual states and state legislatures to craft, advance, and codify elect reform legislation.

“As we saw, an important thing to keep in mind, so much of our debate between the election and up until a couple weeks ago was over these Article 2 abuses and the Constitution, where only the state legislatures can actually go and set” the rules for mail-in voting, Miller explained.

“This is something we’re going to start ramping up, not immediately,” he said. “We’ll give them a little bit of a transition period, but this is critical and we have to do it.”
Trump to lead national election integrity drive as first post-presidential move, says adviser. #ItsNotOver Trump to lead national election integrity drive as first post-presidential move, says adviser via @JustTheNews
— Oregon GOP (@Oregon_GOP) January 23, 2021
With a Democrat and Progressive controlled Legislative Branch – and with Joe Biden in the White House effectively executing a third term of Obama-era policies, Miller alluded to the fact that it’s highly unlikely Republicans in Congress would be able – or willing – to champion any election integrity reform bills.

“A number of things could be done legislatively but I think President Trump also looks at Capitol Hill and realizes Democrats are in charge of both the House and the Senate and, quite frankly though, even if we had Republicans controlling much of this, they might go to block some of these things. We see how the DC insiders are just slow to move,” Miller explained.

Hitting on a key reality, that the establishment GOP is slow to act and that even when they do it is without a definitive conservative voice in championing the American people, Miller called out the insider GOP leadership for criticism.

“I mean, how many years did Republicans sit there and do nothing about Section 230 abuses? How many years did Republicans sit there on Capitol Hill, even though we had both the House and the Senate, and never did anything about the spying and cheating that we saw from President Obama and his administration, everything he did in the transition in 2016 when Joe Biden was screaming, ‘Logan Act’ and all the abuses we saw Susan Rice and all the other things. Republicans never got to the bottom of that,” he asked, leaving the answer for the American people to decide.

[COMMENT: Personally, I think not all the election cheating benefitted the Dems. The Uni-Party fascist corporate/wall street/banker branch had its Republican grifters like McConnell as well.]
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

DOJ Officials Debate Whether To Decline Charges Against Some At Capitol Riot: Report

By Eric Quintanar
Jan 23, 2021 DailyWire.com
l
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 06: Supporters of US President Donald Trump protest inside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DC. Demonstrators breeched security and entered the Capitol as Congress debated the 2020 presidential election Electoral Vote Certification.
Brent Stirton/Getty Images
Justice Department officials are reportedly debating whether they should decline to pursue charges against some of the individuals who went inside the Capitol building during the January 6 riot, including those known to have only broken the law through entering but didn’t commit other crimes.

The Washington Post, citing “multiple people familiar with the discussions,” reports that the internal debate sparked due to the variety among the people who stormed the Capitol that day. Should someone be taken to court solely for entering the Capitol building illegally, officials said, prosecutors could run into trouble getting a conviction.

“If an old man says all he did was walk in and no one tried to stop him, and he walked out and no one tried to stop him, and that’s all we know about what he did, that’s a case we may not win,” one official told The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity.

But on the other side of the debate, some officials worry that not prosecuting every case — even for those only accused of entering the Capitol illegally — could send the message that there are only trivial consequences for engaging in such conduct, reports the Post.

Another consideration could be whether or not charging everyone involved could overwhelm the D.C. Court system, which recorded fewer than 300 cases in 2020. (However, many of those cases had multiple defendants in them). While The Washington Post explicitly mentions this as a possible consideration, there doesn’t appear to be any indication that officials have been factoring this into the ongoing internal debate.

Law enforcement officials tentatively believe that 800 people, give or take a hundred, may have entered the Capitol. This figure includes those accused of engaging in violence, as well as those who may have followed the crowd into the Capitol building. It also includes those who have been accused of assaulting officers, those who have been accused of plotting to detain congressional lawmakers, and those who have appeared in viral photos.

Mari Raimondi, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, told The Washington Post in a statement that officials were going to hold everyone who broke the law accountable for their actions.

“There is absolute resolve from the Department of Justice to hold all who intentionally engaged in criminal acts at the Capitol accountable,” said Raimondi in an email. “We have consistently made clear that we will follow the facts and evidence and charge individuals accordingly. We remain confident that the U.S. District Court for Washington, DC can appropriately handle the docket related to any resulting charges.”

The Post notes that other options exist for people accused of entering the Capitol building during the riot, such as seeking deferred plea agreements, scenarios in which charges could be dropped should a person not commit any crimes for a period of time. Similar agreements have been used for people accused of jumping the White House fence in the past, reports the news agency.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
[COMMENT: If you have the time to view the video, it is excellent.]


Update on the BIG LIE: Law Professor Confirms Election Fraud Evidence Is “Significant” – Cases Only Dismissed on Process Grounds Not Merit

By Jim Hoft
Published January 24, 2021 at 2:40pm

The liberal elites and fake news media are working feverishly to cover-up the BIG LIE.

Diana West
wrote yesterday on how the jackal media and hyena politicians are tearing to pieces all opponents of the coup that installed the Biden-Harris gang into office.

The far-left power structure must eliminate all voices who may threaten theie BIG LIE. You are no longer allowed to question the historic fraud that installed a dementia patient and his unpopular California sidekick who refused to campaign into the White House.

But millions of Americans refuse to buy this historic lie.
professor-david-clements.jpg


Law Professor Davide K. Clements released a rebuttal video recently refuting the BIG LIE, that there was no evidence of election fraud in the 2020 election.

As The Gateway Pundit has reported for months now the fraud was extensive and historic.


Professor Clements’s video already has 121,000 views.

View: https://youtu.be/CreVpaDZgOY



31:07 min

Via LifeSite News:
A business law professor at New Mexico State University (NMSU) said that anyone who proposes there “is no evidence” for massive election fraud in November’s presidential election doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Professor David K. Clements released a provocative video in response to a letter sent to the entire faculty of NMSU from Dr. John Floros, the university’s president. Clements described the letter as “regurgitating” the narrative “in the media” regarding the election and the January 6 violence at the U.S. Capital.
While broadly addressing many issues on these topics, he was very specific with regards to his own personal investigation into the election fraud question.

For those who believe “there is no evidence, you don’t know what you are talking about,” he said. “I’ve reviewed hours upon hours of public hearings. I have read almost all of the lawsuits that are out there. Most of them were dismissed on legal process grounds.”
These suits, he said, were dismissed due to a legal lack of standing.
“The general argument” that was presented in these cases, he said, “was that because this was a general harm,” then “you have no standing because your harm has to be particular. It’s not because there isn’t evidence. There is evidence,” the professor emphasized.
“In fact, I’m in possession of 574 pages of sworn affidavits, forensic reports, all of which would make its way in a court of law under the rules of evidence in a federal or state court. The fact that the evidence has not been heard here by these courts” should not be conflated into “this idea that there is no evidence,” Clements argued.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

MORE VIDEO EVIDENCE Shows the ‘Riots’ At the US Capitol Were Infiltrated by Antifa and Other Radicals

By Joe Hoft
Published January 24, 2021 at 7:10pm
Antifa-in-Capitol.jpg

Antifa and others inserted themselves into the Capitol protests and framed Trump supporters. There is now ample evidence to support this.

Antifa-BLM leader John Sullivan organized an Antifa protest at the Washington Memorial not far from the US Capitol on January 6th.

This was right before the violence at the US Capitol.

For some reason, the mainstream media refuses to report on this Antifa protest?

sullivan-3.jpg

John Sullivan was later arrested for rioting inside the US Capitol. No one has yet asked what happened to his cronies?

There is also video of Antifa handing out weapons from a bag during the Capitol Hill riots.

The media has also ignored this.


Now a new video has surfaced showing Antifa or Antifa-like individuals in the Capitol on January 6th huddling in a Capitol office and regrouping after rioting in the capitol.

The individuals appear happy that they did what they planned on doing – rioting in the Capitol.

One man had a Trump flag around his neck (see above).

Another woman hollers into the room full of what appear to be Antifa anarchists and gives them directions on how to escape the Capitol building.
Antifa-in-Capitol-2-Microphone-Lady.jpg

Below is a short video of the event:

View: https://youtu.be/bH2iTWqpBFI
2:32 min

This is all consistent with what we previously reported.

Experts agreed with our reporting that the protests were infiltrated by outside groups:


Other Antifa members bragged about dressing up as Trump supporters:


Antifa members were in the area during the innocent shooting of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt too:


It does not appear the mainstream media is looking for the truth behind this tragic event.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

BREAKING: Dominion Files $1.3 Billion Lawsuit Against Rudy Giuliani

By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published January 25, 2021 at 10:57am
Rudy-Giuliani-Common-Sense.jpg

Dominion Voting Systems has filed a massive $1.3 billion lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani.


The controversial company filed a lawsuit for the same amount against pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell, who has also been fighting tooth and nail against election fraud, earlier this month.

Dominion’s director of product strategy and security, Eric Coomer, also filed a lawsuit in December against President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, Giuliani, Powell, Newsmax, One America News Network, OANN reporter Chanel Rion, Michelle Malkin and others that he has accused of civil conspiracy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The 107 page lawsuit against Giuliani was filed in the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., on Monday morning.

Dominion claims that allegations of election fraud were “demonstrably false.” It also brings up the protest at the Capitol on January 6.
“During a court hearing contesting the results of the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, Rudy Giuliani admitted that the Trump Campaign ‘doesn’t plead fraud’ and that ‘this is not a fraud case.’ Although he was unwilling to make false election fraud claims about Dominion and its voting machines in a court of law because he knew those allegations are false, he and his allies manufactured and disseminated the ‘Big Lie,’ which foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election,” the lawsuit states. “Giuliani reportedly demanded $20,000 per day for that Big Lie. But he also cashed in by hosting a podcast where he exploited election falsehoods to market gold coins, supplements, cigars, and protection from ‘cyberthieves.’ Even after the United States Capitol had been stormed by rioters who had been deceived by Giuliani and his allies, Giuliani shirked responsibility for the consequences of his words and repeated the Big Lie again.”
The lawsuit also names a slew of other people that they might be planning to target with lawsuits as well.

“As a result of the defamatory falsehoods peddled by Giuliani—in concert with Sidney Powell, Russell Ramsland, L. Lin Wood, Mike Lindell, Patrick Byrne, Lou Dobbs, Fox News, Fox Business, Newsmax, One America News Network (‘OAN’), The Epoch Times, and other like-minded allies and media outlets determined to promote a false preconceived narrative about the 2020 election—Dominion’s founder and employees have been harassed and have received death threats, and Dominion has suffered unprecedented and irreparable harm,” the lawsuit continues.

Earlier this month, when they filed the lawsuit against Powell, a lawyer for the company said that they are “still weighing whether to sue Trump.”

To win the lawsuits, Dominion must prove that the people they are suing were acting in “actual malice,” and not sincere belief that the company helped to rig the election against the president.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

RUDY BRINGS THE FIRE: Giuliani Responds to $1.3 Billion Dominion Lawsuit AND IT’S EPIC

By Jim Hoft
Published January 25, 2021 at 11:53am
Rudy-Giuliani-Common-Sense.jpg

As reported earlier by Cassandra Fairbanks — Dominion Voting Systems filed a massive $1.3 billion lawsuit against former New York City Mayor and Trump Attorney Rudy Giuliani.


The controversial company filed a lawsuit for the same amount against pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell, who has also been fighting tooth and nail against election fraud, earlier this month.

Dominion’s director of product strategy and security, Eric Coomer, also filed a lawsuit in December against President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, Giuliani, Powell, Newsmax, One America News Network, OANN reporter Chanel Rion, Michelle Malkin, and others that he has accused of civil conspiracy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The 107 page lawsuit against Giuliani was filed in the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., on Monday morning.

Dominion claims that allegations of election fraud were “demonstrably false.” It also brought up the protest at the Capitol on January 6 for some reason. In fact their announcement to attack Rudy Giuliani reads like something from a far-left publication.

Later this morning Rudy Giuliani responded to the Dominion Voting Systems announcement.

Rudy says he looks forward to investigating their history, finances and practices fully and completely.


Via WABC Radio:
Giuliani, who is also a host for WABC radio, issued the following statement:
“Dominion’s defamation lawsuit for $1.3B will allow me to investigate their history, finances, and practices fully and completely. The amount being asked for is, quite obviously, intended to frighten people of faint heart. It is another act of intimidation by the hate-filled left-wing to wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech, as well as the ability of lawyers to defend their clients vigorously. As such, we will investigate a countersuit against them for violating these Constitutional rights.” – Rudy Giuliani
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

At Least One Third of the Nation Believes Joe Biden Stole the Election – Unchanged from December

By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published January 25, 2021 at 2:05pm
IMG_7783.jpg

One third of the nation believes that Joe Biden won the presidency due to election fraud, according to a Monmouth poll released on Monday.


The number is even larger amongst Republicans, 72 percent of whom believe that the election was rigged.

The polling firm also found that ten percent of America will never accept Biden as president.
“This result is virtually unchanged from November when 34% believed that fraud determined the outcome or that Biden’s victory would be overturned. Fully 72% of Republicans persist in believing that Biden’s win is due to voter fraud. Among Americans who still believe Trump lost due to fraud, nearly two-thirds say it is time to move on, but one-third of this group – which equates to 10% of all American adults – say they will never accept Biden as president,” Monmouth reports.
Approximately two thirds of the people who believe the election was stolen still think that it is time to accept Biden and move on.

The pollsters found that “fifty-four percent said they were “very confident” in its integrity, up 10 points from November, while those who were ‘not at all’ confident dipped slightly from 29 percent to 25 percent in the same period.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
1611610398912.png
LINCOLN, Neb. (KLKN)- The FBI announced the arrest of Omaha man, Brandon Straka, on Monday for a federal warrant related to the Capitol breach on January 6.

Straka is facing three federal charges and is in custody, he’ll appear in court on January 26.

Full criminal complaint…
Feds quote quite a bit from Straka's tweets — "Also- be embarrassed & hide if you need to- but I was there. It was not Antifa at the Capitol" — and say there's video of him urging crowd to take a Capitol police officer's shield pic.twitter.com/dSVoya13OT
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) January 25, 2021
And there's also this one: https://t.co/1Chcnajxnr
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) January 25, 2021
1611610269013.png1611610329017.png
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Anti-Trump Leader of Group Who Marched With BLM, Claims Group Helped Storm the Capitol

By Nick Arama | Jan 25, 2021 12:15 AM ET

554e7b8b-319e-4e18-af2a-ead006ace748-730x487.jpg
AP Photo/John Minchillo
I’ve written about the involvement of folks in addition to Trump supporters in the actions that occurred on January 6 at the United States Capitol.

We’ve heard a lot about John Sullivan, the left-wing activist who had been involved in organizing BLM protests in Utah and was heard at a D.C. protest in August calling for President Donald Trump to be ripped out of the White House.

He was right at the door to the House chamber when Ashli Babbitt was shot and filmed the incident. He was later arrested and police alleged he was involved in inciting action that day that could be heard on video.

The NY Post also revealed that their law enforcement sources had identified two Antifa members from New York among the people at the Capitol.

You may have noticed, if you were observing what occurred, that there seemed to be people who were not your ordinary run-of-the-mill Trump supporters, who seemed to be dressed for battle, organized, and acting somewhat in concert.

That may not have been our imagination. There’s a story that has gone largely unrecognized by much of the media, except for a story in Reuters that most everyone else ignored. Lifesite picked up their story and ran with it this week.

That’s the alleged involvement of the Boogaloo Bois.

Now, aren’t the Boogaloo Bois right-wing, you might say? Well, no, they have a variety of opinions. But if you just listened to some of the mainstream media, that’s what you might think because that’s how some have painted them with absolutely no understanding of what they are about.

They’re actually anti-government or close to anarchists in thought, who ultimately hope for a revolution toppling the government or a second civil war.

They’re not Trump supporters; they’ve actually been more aligned with the BLM and Antifa over the summer during the riots because they saw that as moving more toward what they wanted.

Reuters spoke to Mike Dunn, one of their leaders in Virginia, who told them “three or four groups of loyalists under his command helped storm the Capitol.” Dunn said they used the moment to strike at the government and further their agenda.

Dunn tweeted on January 6 that Boogaloo Bois were involved in the action at the Capitol, “BB teams have been activated in VA and we currently have 4 fireteams inside capital and 7 more outside. Sic temper Tyrannis.” For those who don’t recognize the Latin, that’s what John Wilkes Booth shouted after killing Abraham Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. It means, “Thus always to tyrants.”

He’s since deleted the tweet, but you can see it here.

Boogaloo Boi’ Leader Who Aligns with Black Lives Matter Boasted About Organizing Armed Insurrection On US Capitol

Mike Dunn is the leader of the “Boogaloo Bois,” an anti-government, anti-Trump group whose adherents call for a revolution toppling the federal government. @FBI pic.twitter.com/9Tqu2sRTT8
— Landon (@Ivylgeexec) January 18, 2021
Interestingly, the person he’s talking with is Jason Charter, who has been involved at multiple BLM/Antifa actions in the D.C. area, who seems to know him enough to know he’s not a Trump supporter and ask what he was doing there. Dunn even calls Trump a “tyrant” in the tweet.

According to Reuters, when Dunn was asked whether Boogaloos had planned to attack the Capitol, he responded: “Just know there is more to come.” He said that he had not participated in the action, but he showed Reuters video that he said was video of Boogaloo Bois involved in breaching the Capitol and tussling with the police.

Dunn also tweeted after the event about “infiltrators,” according to Lifesite.
“After MAGA and others stormed the capital building in a moment of anger (which was cool)…they retreated to hotels to comply with the Curfew. We obviously didn’t…stayed out in the streets until 12.”
One Twitter user blasted back at Dunn’s tweet, saying that the Trump supporters Dunn claimed to have “stormed the capital building” were actually “infiltrators, not real MAGA.” Dunn swiftly responded: “Yeh we know.”
Dunn and his group marched with the BLM over the summer, as you can see here.
BLM-aligned, anti-Trump group brags they ‘helped storm the Capitol’
Mike Dunn, leader of the group called 'Boogaloo Bois,' tweeted on Jan. 6 that the group had '4 fireteams inside [the] capital and 7 more outside' BLM-aligned, anti-Trump group brags they ‘helped storm the Capitol’
— LifeSiteNews.com (@LifeSite) January 19, 2021
In Richmond, they’ve joined or at least pretended to the BLM protests pic.twitter.com/ASxApiy8zL
— ThatRVAGuy (@ThatRVAGuy) July 27, 2020
Despite all that, here’s Dunn involved in a gun rights protest that BLM and Black Panthers were also at, along with other gun rights supporters on Jan. 18.
Mike Dunn, who runs the ‘Last Sons of Liberty’ branches of Boogaloo, speaks about the banning of open carry at protests in Richmond #Richmond #Virginia #Capitol pic.twitter.com/TtcYwFhTkh
— Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) January 18, 2021
His account is still up on Twitter.

It would seem this is pretty important, if true. So where’s the media attention to this story?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

DOJ Watchdog Probing Whether Officials Tried To Interfere With 2020 Election Results

MONDAY, JAN 25, 2021 - 13:19
The Justice Department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz - a Democrat donor whose wife helped run campaigns for Democrats before joining CNN's Washington bureau - is investigating whether DOJ officials "engaged in an improper attempt" to overturn President Biden's victory in the 2020 election, according to the Wall Street Journal.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz
"The investigation will encompass all relevant allegations that may arise that are within the scope of the OIG’s jurisdiction," said Horowitz, who was accused of pulling punches to give special treatment to establishment darlings during his investigation of the FBI's conduct surrounding the 2016 US election.
Horowitz said that his office would not comment any further on the investigation until it's completed.

His announcement comes days after the New York Times reported that a top DOJ official and President Trump had conspired in the final days of his presidency to removing the acting attorney general and install a loyalist who could somehow change the results of the election in key battleground states.

Trump was allegedly considering replacing acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, acting head of the DOJ's civil division.

When it came to his investigation of the FBI, Horowitz notably never interviewed Carter Page - who the agency targeted by fabricating evidence to defraud the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISC).
Although Horowitz says he conducted more than 100 interviews of witnesses, including Christopher Steele, who wrote the salacious and unverified anti-Trump dossier the FBI relied on to obtain the wiretap warrant, he failed to interview Page, the target — and alleged victim — of the controversial warrant. Page confirmed to RealClearInvestigations that no investigator from Horowitz’s office asked him questions.
That is not the first time Horowitz has failed to interview key subjects. With the help of seasoned federal investigators, RealClearInvestigations deconstructed previous probes by his office, combing through the footnotes and appendices of his reports. RCI found numerous instances in which Horowitz stopped short of pursuing evidence and was content to take high-level officials at their word, even in the face of conflicting evidence. -RealClear Investigations
Meanwhile, Horowitz gave former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe special treatment - accepting his explanation for why he failed to recuse himself from the Clinton email case until November 2016, while also accepting McCabe's claim that he had nothing to do with his wife's Senate campaign, even though he:
  • personally met with her sponsor and fundraiser McAuliffe;
  • drove her to campaign stops;
  • attended one of her candidate debates;
  • discussed the campaign with her on FBI equipment;
  • appeared in a family photo used in a campaign mailer; and,
  • posed with her wearing her official campaign T-shirt for a photo distributed on social media to promote her candidacy.
As Paul Sperry of RealClear Investigations noted in late 2019, "Were such actions violations of the Hatch Act, a federal law that prohibits federal employees from engaging “in political activity in an official capacity at any time”? If so, the topic didn’t interest Horowitz, who accepted on face value the FBI’s argument in a letter to the Senate that he played no formal role in his wife’s campaign and that his activities were permissible under the law."

Sperry wrote this at the time:
While acknowledging that Horowitz is widely respected, these critics say his work has long been hampered by biases, conflicts and a tendency to play favorites, as in past probes of former FBI Director James Comey, whom Horowitz worked under in New York.
Their main complaint is that he pulls his punches.

Horowitz’s investigation of the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton email case, for example, concluded that many of Comey’s explanations for his dubious actions were “unconvincing," while stopping short of saying that Comey lied to investigators. Comey asserted implausibly that he delayed acting on a mountain of new Clinton email evidence discovered on a laptop in New York because he was never briefed about it until nearly a month after his top aides found out about it in September 2016.
In probing whether Comey illegally leaked classified information to the New York Times, Horowitz in the end accepted his argument that the memo of a conversation with President Trump was sensitive but “not classified” – even though the memo contained information about the FBI's ongoing counterintelligence investigation of the president’s national security adviser. -RealClear Investigations
"I see a pattern of him pulling up short and trying to be a bit of a statesman instead of making the hard calls," 24-year FBI veteran Chris Swecker - who served as assistant director of its criminal investigative division, told Sperry.

Also notable, during his 17-month probe into the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, which he touted as "thorough" and "comprehensive," Horowitz repeatedly declined to use his subpoena power - allowing key players to provide their own evidence.

He also allowed two lead FBI officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, to sort through which of their electronic communications were "personal" vs. "work related" according to the report.
Horowitz subsequently learned through interviews that Strzok drafted classified investigative documents and communicated with Page about them on their private email in violation of department rules, which require officials to communicate through government channels -- the same basis for the Clinton email probe. Yet neither was compelled to turn over the emails.

"The inspector general and I arranged an agreement where I would go through my personal accounts and identify any material that was relevant to FBI business and turn it over,” Strzok said in testifying before Congress. "It was reviewed. There was none. My understanding is the inspector general was satisfied with that action.

Horowitz never referred Strzok for criminal sanctions for maintaining court-sealed documents on an unsecure computer. Strzok was nonetheless fired last year by the bureau for misconduct. He is now suing the department for unlawful termination.
The IG also failed to demand access to Comey’s private Gmail account, even though he, too, used it for official FBI business. -RealClear Investigations
And while Horowitz is widely credited with having uncovered anti-Trump / pro-Clinton text messages between Strzok and Page while they were in the middle of investigating Trump and Clinton, he only 'found' them after pressure from congressional Republicans - and has apparently given up trying to find still-missing text messages blamed on a tech error.

In short, we expect Horowitz to find something...
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
BREAKING: FBI Agents Arrest ‘Walkaway’ Founder Brandon Straka

By Cristina Laila
Published January 25, 2021 at 3:58pm
brandon-straka.jpg
Brandon Straka
FBI agents arrested ‘Walkaway’ founder Brandon Straka on Monday for his ‘actions’ at the US Capitol on January 6.

The ‘WalkAway’ campaign began on Facebook in the summer of 2018 after Straka, a handsome, gay hairdresser from New York posted a video explaining why he was walking away from the Democrat party.

The Walkaway movement attracted tens of thousands of people, making Straka a target of the Marxist left.

Straka, 44, was taken into custody on Monday by agents from the FBI Omaha Field Office and faces charges of impeding a law enforcement officer during civil disorder, knowingly entering and remaining on restricted grounds without lawful authority and/or engaging in disorderly conduct within proximity to a restricted building to impede official functions and engaging in disorderly conduct with intent to disturb a hearing before Congress.

According to the complaint, the FBI received many tips about Brandon Straka’s involvement in the protest at the Capitol, including one from his own relative.

KETV reported:
Court documents show that officials were tipped off about Straka posting a video near the Capitol entrance, shouting “go, go!” The video was later removed and officials said they could not find any video or posts on his Twitter page relating to his actions at the Capitol.
However, the FBI was sent multiple screenshots. These screenshots reportedly revealed that Straka made the following comments on Twitter on Jan. 6.:
  • “Patriots at the Capitol – HOLD. THE. LINE!!!!”
    “I arrived at the Capitol a few hours ago as Patriots were storming from all sides. I was quite close to entering myself as police began tear-gassing us from the door. I inhaled tear gas & got it in my eyes. Patriots began exiting shortly after saying Congress had been cleared.”
    “I’m completely confused. For 6-8 weeks everybody on the right has been saying ‘1776!’ & that if congress moves forward it will mean a revolution! So congress moves forward. Patriots storm the Capitol – now everybody is virtual signaling their embarrassment that this happened.”
    “Also- be embarrassed & hide if you need to- but I was there. It was not Antifa at the Capitol. It was freedom loving Patriots who were DESPERATE to fight for the final hope of our Republic because literally nobody cares about them. Everyone else can denounce them. I will not.”
    “Perhaps I missed the part where it was agreed this would be a revolution of ice cream cones & hair-braiding parties to take our government back from lying, cheating globally interested swamp parasites. My bad.”


 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

DOJ Watchdog Probing Whether Officials Worked to ‘Alter the Outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election’
14
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz testifies about the Inspector General's report on alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, December 11, 2019. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
HANNAH BLEAU25 Jan 2021108

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general is opening an investigation into whether any current or former DOJ employees engaged in efforts to “alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election,” DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced on Monday.

“The investigation will encompass all relevant allegations that may arise that are within the scope of the OIG’s jurisdiction,” the statement read.

Horowitz reiterated that the Office of the Inspector General has jurisdiction to investigate the allegations but added that it does “not extend to allegations against other government officials.”

“The OIG is making this statement, consistent with DOJ policy, to reassure the public that an appropriate agency is investigating the allegations,” Horowitz’s statement said, adding that there will be no further comments until the investigation comes to completion:
Department of Justice Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced today the initiation of an investigation. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Announces Initiation of Investigation | U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General pic.twitter.com/jUMiC4vIcT
— Justice OIG (@JusticeOIG) January 25, 2021
The announcement follows a report from the New York Times last week that alleged that a DOJ lawyer “had devised a plan with President Donald J. Trump to oust Jeffrey A. Rosen as acting attorney general and wield the department’s power to force Georgia state lawmakers to overturn its presidential election results”:
The unassuming lawyer who worked on the plan, Jeffrey Clark, had been devising ways to cast doubt on the election results and to bolster Mr. Trump’s continuing legal battles and the pressure on Georgia politicians. Because Mr. Rosen had refused the president’s entreaties to carry out those plans, Mr. Trump was about to decide whether to fire Mr. Rosen and replace him with Mr. Clark.
Department officials apparently determined, among themselves, that they would resign if Trump dismissed Rosen.

Clark, however, denied the specific report that he formulated a plan to remove Rosen from his position or “formulate[d] recommendations for action based on factual inaccuracies gleaned from the internet.”

“My practice is to rely on sworn testimony to assess disputed factual claims,” Clark said, according to the Times. He did acknowledge that there was a “candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president” and added that it is “unfortunate that those who were part of a privileged legal conversation would comment in public about such internal deliberations, while also distorting any discussions.”

Former President Trump did not comment on the Times’s report.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Less than half in poll say election fraud allegations given 'fair hearing' by courts, Congress

Nearly 40% of voters believe those concerns were "swept under the rug."

By Daniel Payne
Updated: January 20, 2021 - 5:50pm

Less than half of U.S. voters say that concerns and allegations of voter fraud were given appropriate attention by the courts and Congress, according to a new Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen.

Just 49% of respondents said such concerns received a "fair hearing" before the courts and Congress, while 38% said the concerns were "swept under the rug."
Image

Just the News Poll, Did allegations of voter fraud receive a fair hearing?

Just the News Daily Poll
RMG Research

Thirteen percent were unsure.

Allegations and lawsuits related to election integrity proliferated in the wake of November's election, with investigators, pundits and politicians — including President Trump who lost reelection — claiming that significant irregularities have cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election results.

Multiple courts have struck down challenges to election results nationwide, though numerous investigations and court cases are still ongoing.

Click here to see this poll's cross-demographic tabulations.
Click here to see the poll's methodology and sample demographics.
 
Top