Massive Vote Fraud (Redux)
#11
(11-26-2020, 12:40 PM)ham Wrote: ...so I guess it's just fair good old Karl gets yet another chance...

Keep the faith, ham.  The Krakens have been released!  In Georgia and Michigan.  


.pdf   Kraken1_COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf (Size: 694.87 KB / Downloads: 12)


.pdf   Kraken2_Michigan-Complaint.pdf (Size: 861.04 KB / Downloads: 12)

It's over for Slow Joe and the Ho.
Reply
#12
For those who don't want to plow through a hundred some pages, here's a good summary:

Quote:Sidney Powell Suit Makes 30 Allegations in Bid to Invalidate Georgia Election Results
By Petr Svab
November 26, 2020

A lawsuit released by lawyers led by former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell makes 30 allegations of electoral fraud and other illegal and irregular activities and features pertaining to the 2020 general elections in Georgia (pdf).

The allegations, most of which are based on witness and expert statements, relate to mail-in ballot fraud and insecurities, recount irregularities and deficiencies, and security hazards of the Dominion Voting Systems machines used by the state.

The suit alleges the following:

1. The software used by the Dominion machines was accessed by agents of malicious actors, such as China and Iran, “in order to monitor and manipulate elections,” including the 2020 election. The allegation is based on a redacted declaration of a former electronic intelligence analyst under 305th Military Intelligence.

“By using servers and employees connected with rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable leaked credentials, Dominion neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020,” the suit says.

2. An affiant, whose name was redacted for security reasons, alleged that the software used by Dominion was designed for Venezuelan government with the specific purpose to rig elections without the risk of getting caught. The affiant said he was part of a national security detail to former Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez.

“The purpose of this conspiracy was to create and operate a voting system that could change the votes in elections from votes against persons running the Venezuelan government to votes in their favor in order to maintain control of the government,” he said.

The allegation was corroborated by another witness who “was in an official position related to elections and witnessed manipulations of petitions to prevent a removal of President Chavez.”

3. Another affiant said he’s the cousin of the former chief executive of Smartmatic, the company that developed the software adopted by Dominion. He said he has personal knowledge that the executive manipulated the company “to ensure the election for Chavez in the 2004 Referendum in Venezuela,” the suit says.

He also testified that the executive, Anthony Mugica, “received tens of millions of dollars from 2003–2015 from the Venezuelan government to ensure Smartmatic technology would be implemented around the world, including in the U.S.,” the suit says.

4. The vote tallies produced by the Dominion machines can be manipulated by imputing a malicious code with just “7 minutes alone with [the voting machine] and a screwdriver,” according to Andrew Appel, Princeton professor of computer science and election security expert.

5. A ballot can be spoiled or altered by the Dominion machine because “the ballot marking printer is in the same paper path as the mechanism to deposit marked ballots into an attached ballot box,” a study by University of California–Berkeley said. It indicates that after a voter submits a ballot to the machine, the machine can add additional marks on it.

6. The voting machines are susceptible to hacking or remote tampering because they are connected to the internet, even though they’re not supposed to be.

“Voting machines were able to be connected to the internet by way of laptops that were obviously internet accessible,” the suit says. “If one laptop was connected to the internet, the entire precinct was compromised.”

Affiant Hari Hursti, a Finnish computer programmer and election security expert, said, “There is evidence of remote access and remote troubleshooting, which presents a grave security implication.”

7. The voting machines have activity logs that can be overwritten, according to Hursti. That means hackers or malevolent operators can tamper with the results and then erase their steps.

8. Ronald Watkins, a software and cyber-security expert who reviewed the Dominion software manual, said the machine operators can change the setting to exclude certain ballots from being counted (based on how much of the “bubble” they had filled in to indicate a vote for a candidate). Scans of the excluded ballots are placed in a separate folder and the operator can delete them simply using Windows File Manager.

9. Watkins said that to report the final vote counts, the machine operator would copy and paste the “Results” folder from the machine onto a USB drive.

“While a simple procedure, this process may be error-prone and is very vulnerable to malicious administrators,” he said.

10. There are no procedures that would ensure the security of the USB drives used to report vote tallies from precincts. In one Georgia County, 3,300 votes were found on memory sticks not loaded into the central vote tally system, the suit says.

11. The test report and secretary of state certificate for the voting machines are undated.

12. Smartmatic faces litigation over “glitches” that allegedly affected the 2010 and 2013 mid-term elections in the Philippines, “raising questions of cheating and fraud,” the suit says.

13. Between 31,559 and 38,886 absentee ballots were returned by Republican voters, but were not counted, according to an analysis by expert witness Williams Briggs, a statistician and former Cornell Medical School professor, based on a phone survey of potentially affected GOP voters by the team of former Trump campaign member Matt Braynard.

14. Between 16,938 and 22,771 Republican voters received absentee ballots they didn’t request, based on the same analysis. That indicates unlawful absentee requests, the suit alleges.

15. Based on Braynard’s analysis of voter registrations and change-of-address requests, 20,311 absentee or early voters in Georgia voted even though they had moved out of state, which the state prohibits.

16. Georgia entered into an unlawful consent agreement with Democratic Party agencies that gutted the effectiveness of matching signatures on absentee ballot envelopes with signatures on record with the authorities. The matching was reduced “to a broad process with discretion, rather than enforcement of the signature requirement as statutorily required,” the suit says.

The signature matching procedure was influenced by “guidance and training materials” produced by the Democratic Party.

17. Gov. Brian Kemp illegally authorized election officials to open outer envelopes of absentee ballots three weeks before the election. Georgia law “clearly prohibits opening absentee ballots prior to election day,” the suit says.

18. Georgia’s hand recount of the presidential race was illegitimate for a lack of meaningful observation.

“Democrat-majority counties provided political parties and candidates, including the Trump Campaign, no meaningful access or actual opportunity to review and assess the validity of mail-in ballots during the pre-canvassing meetings,” the suit says.
The allegation is based on multiple recount observer testimonies.

19. Votes for President Donald Trump were placed during the recount into vote piles for Trump’s opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. The allegation is based on multiple observer testimonies, as well as an undercover video produced by Project Veritas, an undercover journalism nonprofit.

20.  Some ballots from the “No Vote” and “Jorgensen” trays were moved to the “Biden” tray. One witness made the allegation.

21. Many voters weren’t allowed to cancel their mail-in ballot on Election Day and vote in person. One witness made the allegation.

22. The same witness alleged that many voters were denied the option to cast a provisional ballot on Election Day “when a mail-in ballot has already been received for them, but when they did not cast those mail-in ballots,” the suit says.

23. Signatures on mail-in ballot envelopes weren’t verified during the recount, one witness alleged. “At no time did I witness any Recounter or individual participate in the recount verifying signatures [on mail-in ballots],” the affiant said.

24. Some counties didn’t actually recount the ballots by hand, but instead used machines.

25. One batch of ballots was suspiciously “pristine.” Almost all were for Biden. The allegation is based on an observer testimony, who professed “20 years of experience of handling ballots.”

One batch of ballots “was pristine” and “there was a difference in the texture of the paper,” according to the witness.
“I observed that the markings for the candidates on these ballots were unusually uniform, perhaps even with a ballot-marking device,” she said.

The ballots also “included a slight depressed pre-fold so they could be easily folded and unfolded for use in the scanning machines.”

26. The same witness also alleged that at one precinct in Milton, Georgia, poll workers were “asked to sign the chain of custody letter on Sunday, even though the machines were not delivered until 2:00 AM in the morning on Election Day.”
In addition, the machines “were not sealed or locked, the serial numbers were not what were reflected on the related documentation,” she said

27. Many batches of ballots were “100% for Biden,” one witness alleged.

28. The same witness also alleged “that the watermark on at least 3 ballots were solid gray instead of transparent, leading me to believe the ballot was counterfeit.” Local elections director offered the explanation that the ballots in question came from a different printer.

29. Authorities lied by claiming vote counting was paused in Fulton County because of “a water leak affecting the room where absentee ballots were being tabulated.”

“The only water leak that needed repairs at State Farm Arena from November 3 – November 5 was a toilet overflow that occurred earlier on November 3. It had nothing to do with a room with ballot counting,” the suit says.

30.  After everyone was “sent home,” one witness “saw election workers remaining behind after people were told to leave, the suit says, alleging that several people stayed behind to continue counting ballots without any observers present.

Demands

The lawsuit asks the court to order Georgia to do the following:

  1. de-certify the election results
  2. not transmit the currently certified election results to the Electoral College
  3. transmit instead certified election results that state that Trump is the winner of the election
  4. impound all the voting machines and software in Georgia for expert inspection by the plaintiffs
  5. not count votes received or tabulated by machines that weren’t certified as required by federal and state law
  6. produce 36 hours of security camera footage of all rooms used in the voting process at State Farm Arena in Fulton County

Down goes Biden!  Down goes Biden!

[Image: WoodchipperTime.gif]
Reply
#13
How do you think he does it?  I don't know.  What makes him so good?

The answer is electoral jujitsu!  Historic implausibility?  Not when you got political voodoo! 

Quote:5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms

Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory. That they are not is curious, to say the least.

By J.B. Shurk
November 23, 2020

In all the excitement among objective journalists for Joe Biden’s declared victory, reporters are missing how extraordinary the Democrat’s performance was in the 2020 election. It’s not just that the former vice president is on track to become the oldest president in American history, it’s what he managed to accomplish at the polls this year.

Candidate Joe Biden was so effective at animating voters in 2020 that he received a record number of votes, more than 15 million more than Barack Obama received in his re-election of 2012. Amazingly, he managed to secure victory while also losing in almost every bellwether county across the country. No presidential candidate has been capable of such electoral jujitsu until now.

While Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 totals in every urban county in the United States, he outperformed her in the metropolitan areas of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Even more surprising, the former VP put up a record haul of votes, despite Democrats’ general failures in local House and state legislative seats across the nation.

He accomplished all this after receiving a record low share of the primary vote compared to his Republican opponent heading into the general election. Clearly, these are tremendous and unexpected achievements that would normally receive sophisticated analysis from the journalist class but have somehow gone mostly unmentioned during the celebrations at news studios in New York City and Washington, D.C.

The massive national political realignment now taking place may be one source of these surprising upsets. Yet still, to have pulled so many rabbits out of his hat like this, nobody can deny that Biden is a first-rate campaigner and politician, the likes of which America has never before seen. Let’s break down just how unique his political voodoo has been in 2020.

1. 80 Million Votes

Holy moly! A lot of Americans turned out for a Washington politician who’s been in office for nearly 50 years. Consider this: no incumbent president in nearly a century and a half has gained votes in a re-election campaign and still lost.

President Trump gained more than ten million votes since his 2016 victory, but Biden’s appeal was so substantial that it overcame President Trump’s record support among minority voters. Biden also shattered Barack Obama’s own popular vote totals, really calling into question whether it was not perhaps Biden who pulled Obama across the finish lines in 2008 and 2012.

Proving how sharp his political instincts are, the former VP managed to gather a record number of votes while consistently trailing President Trump in measures of voter enthusiasm. Biden was so savvy that he motivated voters unenthusiastic about his campaign to vote for him in record numbers.

2. Winning Despite Losing Most Bellwether Counties

Biden is set to become the first president in 60 years to lose the states of Ohio and Florida on his way to election. For a century, these states have consistently predicted the national outcome, and they have been considered roughly representative of the American melting pot as a whole. Despite national polling giving Biden a lead in both states, he lost Ohio by eight points and Florida by more than three.

For Biden to lose these key bellwethers by notable margins and still win the national election is newsworthy. Not since the Mafia allegedly aided John F. Kennedy in winning Illinois over Richard Nixon in 1960 has an American president pulled off this neat trick.

Even more unbelievably, Biden is on his way to winning the White House after having lost almost every historic bellwether county across the country. The Wall Street Journal and The Epoch Times independently analyzed the results of 19 counties around the United States that have nearly perfect presidential voting records over the last 40 years. President Trump won every single bellwether county, except Clallam County in Washington.

Whereas the former VP picked up Clallam by about three points, President Trump’s margin of victory in the other 18 counties averaged over 16 points. In a larger list of 58 bellwether counties that have correctly picked the president since 2000, Trump won 51 of them by an average of 15 points, while the other seven went to Biden by around four points. Bellwether counties overwhelmingly chose President Trump, but Biden found a path to victory anyway.

3. Biden Trailed Clinton Except in a Select Few Cities

Patrick Basham, a pollster with an accurate track record and the director of the Democracy Institute in D.C., highlighted two observations made by fellow colleagues, polling guru Richard Baris of Big Data Poll and Washington Post election analyst Robert Barnes. Baris noted a statistical oddity from 2020’s election returns: “Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia.”

Barnes added that in those “big cities in swing states run by Democrats…the vote even exceeded the number of registered voters.” In the states that mattered most, so many mail-in ballots poured in for Biden from the cities that he put up record-breaking numbers and overturned state totals that looked like comfortable leads for President Trump.

If Democrats succeed in eliminating the Electoral College, Biden’s magic formula for churning out overwhelming vote totals in a handful of cities should make the Democrats unbeatable.

4. Biden Won Despite Democrat Losses Everywhere Else

Randy DeSoto noted in The Western Journal that “Donald Trump was pretty much the only incumbent president in U.S. history to lose his re-election while his own party gained seats in the House of Representatives.” Now that’s a Biden miracle!

In 2020, The Cook Political Report and The New York Times rated 27 House seats as toss-ups going into Election Day. Right now, Republicans appear to have won all 27. Democrats failed to flip a single state house chamber, while Republicans flipped both the House and Senate in New Hampshire and expanded their dominance of state legislatures across the country.

Christina Polizzi, a spokesperson for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, went so far as to state: “It’s clear that Trump isn’t an anchor for the Republican legislative candidates. He’s a buoy.” Amazingly, Biden beat the guy who lifted all other Republicans to victory. Now that’s historic!

5. Biden Overcame Trump’s Commanding Primary Vote

In the past, primary vote totals have been remarkably accurate in predicting general election winners. Political analyst David Chapman highlighted three historical facts before the election.

First, no incumbent who has received 75 percent of the total primary vote has lost re-election. Second, President Trump received 94 percent of the primary vote, which is the fourth highest of all time (higher than Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, or Obama). In fact, Trump is only one of five incumbents since 1912 to receive more than 90 percent of the primary vote.

Third, Trump set a record for most primary votes received by an incumbent when more than 18 million people turned out for him in 2020 (the previous record, held by Bill Clinton, was half that number). For Biden to prevail in the general election, despite Trump’s historic support in the primaries, turns a century’s worth of prior election data on its head.

Joe Biden achieved the impossible. It’s interesting that many more journalists aren’t pointing that out.
Reply
#14
Big if true.  Powell alluded to this earlier. 

Quote:REPORT: Lt Gen McInerney Reports US Special Forces Attacked CIA Server Farm In Germany In Server Seizure Operation, 5 Soldiers Killed, Servers Secured

by CD Media Staff
November 28, 2020

Lt General Thomas McInerney and Lt General Michael Flynn gave interviews to WVW Broadcasting Network today. It was Flynn’s first interview since his pardon.

In stunning testimony, McInerney stated his sources have told him U.S. Army Special Forces, possibly the famed Delta Force, raided the CIA-run server farm in Frankfurt, Germany. 5 soldiers were killed in the ensuing firefight, as well as one CIA paramilitary. The CIA personnel were allegedly flown in from Afghanistan for security, according to reports.

Subsequent review of the secured servers yielded proof that China, Iran, and Russia were involved in the attempted coup against President Donald Trump, who will be shown to have won an overwhelming victory for the American people, McInerney revealed.

“These people have committed treason,” declared McInerney. He pleaded with President Trump to not leave office until the treason is uncovered, otherwise America will be fatally wounded and ripe for takeover by our enemies.

McInerney also stated that he believes President Trump knew the steal was coming, hence his executive order issued for sanctions for interference in our elections by foreign powers.

According to his bio, McInerney was a forward air controller and fighter pilot during the Vietnam War and had flown 407 combat missions during his four tours of duty. In other words, a patriot and trustworthy.

Reports are now circulating that General Flynn is involved in helping the President with a private intelligence operation.

You can listen to the interview here. McInerney is in the second half of the interview [about 42 minutes in].




Link to book by Mary Fanning and Alan Jones referred to in the video:

THE HAMMER is the Key to the Coup "The Political Crime of the Century": How Obama, Brennan, Clapper, and the CIA spied on President Trump, General Flynn ... and everyone else

(Published August 19, 2020, before the current crime of the century.)
Reply
#15
You have clearance, Clarence!

[Image: ClarenceActivated.jpeg]

Quote:November 30, 2020
The revenge of Clarence Thomas
By Fritz Pettyjohn

Twenty-nine years ago, Joe Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and presided over the "high-tech lynching" of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.  Since then, Brett Kavanaugh has been subjected to similar treatment by the Democratic members of the same committee.  Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett were also unfairly abused, if not quite so brutally.

Clarence Thomas didn't just take the abuse.  He fought back, telling Biden to his face, "I think that this today is a travesty.  I think that it is disgusting.  I think that this hearing should never occur in America."  Given what Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were forced to put up with, I think he spoke for all of them.

But given the constraints all five justices were subject to, they could not really respond adequately to all the cheap shots, character assassination, and abuse they were forced to suffer.  Now, together, they can let their actions speak for them.

Their first salvo was Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, when they told Democrat Governor Cuomo of New York to stop harassing his churchgoing constituents.  It's only appropriate that this first exercise of power by the new Thomas Majority should be in defense of the religion in which they were all raised — Catholicism.

There is more to come — so much more that it will amount to a judicial counterrevolution.  Undoing Roe v. Wade is just for openers.  We've got 85 years of judicial activism to work with.  Talk about your target-rich environments!

This isn't the work of one term, or one presidential administration.  This is the work of a generation.  Thomas is 72 and Alito 70, and they are both in good health and good spirits.  For the next ten years, at least, we can expect the Thomas Majority to hold, and it's not unreasonable to expect both Thomas and Alito to retire during a Republican administration, thus assuring that their judicial legacy will continue.  Kavanaugh is 55, Gorsuch 53, and Barrett 48.  They're all going to be around for a very long time.

Restoring American liberty is a big job, and they've got all the time in the world.
Reply
#16
Edward B. Foley, constitutional law prof at Ohio State University, called it all back in 2019.  Full document linked below.

Quote:University Document Published in September 2019 Details 2020 Election to a Frightening Precision

By Jim Hoft
Published December 3, 2020 at 7:52am

[Image: 10A73F03-2CF1-4910-AAA5-FB3D855F7C4B-600x338.jpeg]

Ron at CodeMonkeyZ tweeted out a document published in September 2019 that lays out the Democrat Party’s plan if they find themselves in a major dispute in the 2020 election.


Ron has been following the 2020 election closely since Democrats attempted their steal in early November.

This document was published by Edward B. Foley the Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law and Director, Election Law @ Moritz, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

[Image: disputed-election-600x568.jpg]

The document even includes Arizona and Pennsylvania as contested states in their scenario.

In the document Foley uses Liz Warren as their candidate since she was ahead in polling at the time but it could have been any of the candidates since the Democrats were going to steal the votes no matter who was their candidate.


Quote:[Image: U8_ICW7l_bigger.jpg]
Ron @CodeMonkeyZ 3:44 AM · Dec 3, 2020

In September 2019, a document was published that details the 2020 election - so far - to a frightening precision.

THIS IS THEIR BATTLE PLAN.

Download it. Archive it. Read it. Study it.

Only by knowing their strategy can you know how to win.

https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcont...text=luclj


.pdf   Foley_Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election.pdf (Size: 850.96 KB / Downloads: 14)
Reply
#17
(11-26-2020, 06:28 PM)Albert Hidel Wrote:
(11-26-2020, 12:40 PM)ham Wrote: ...so I guess it's just fair good old Karl gets yet another chance...

Keep the faith, ham.  The Krakens have been released!  In Georgia and Michigan.  

Kraken in Wisconsin!  Collect the complete set!


.pdf   Kraken3_Wisconsin-Complaint.pdf (Size: 780.45 KB / Downloads: 4)
Reply
#18
Here's a Kraken we can believe in:

Quote:Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court

Kris W. Kobach
7 Dec 2020

On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit that is far more important than all of the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.

Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.”  One of those categories concerns “Controversies between two or more states.” Texas’s suit is exactly that. The Supreme Court has opined in the past that it may decline to accept such cases, at its discretion.  But it is incumbent upon the high court to take this case, especially when it presents a such a cut-and-dried question of constitutional law, and when it could indirectly decide who is sworn in as President on January 20, 2021.

The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

In the early years of the Republic, most state legislatures appointed their presidential electors directly, without holding a popular election for President. That would change during the early decades of the nineteenth century. But the constitutional principle remained the same.  Regardless of whether a state appoints its electors by a vote in the legislature or by a vote of the people, it is the state legislature — and only the state legislature — that sets the rules.

Thus, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia’s Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause.

The second constitutional violation occurred when individual counties in each of the four states changed the way that they would receive, evaluate, or treat the ballots. Twenty years ago, in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when one Florida county treated ballots one way, and another Florida county treated ballots a different way. Voters had the constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally from county to county.

So when election officials in Wayne County, Michigan, ignored the requirements of Michigan law and denied poll watchers access to vote counting, while other counties in Michigan followed the law, that violated the Equal Protection Clause.  Similarly, in Wisconsin, when the Administrator of the City of Milwaukee Elections Commission ignored the requirements of Wisconsin law and directed election workers to write in the addresses of witnesses on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots, while ballots without witness addresses were deemed invalid elsewhere, that resulted in the unequal treatment of ballots in the state.

Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law.  It is not dependent upon disputed facts.  Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to remand the appointment of electors in the four states back to the state legislatures. As the Supreme Court said in 1892 in the case of McPherson v. Blacker, “Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time…”.

If Texas prevails, the four state legislatures could follow any number of courses in appointing their presidential electors.  They could assess the election results and try to exclude those ballots that were counted in violation of state law in order to determine a winner, or they could divide their Electoral College votes between the two candidates, or they could follow a different path. But they have to follow the Constitution in whatever they do.

In the rest of country, the states followed the constitutional rules in appointing presidential electors. The offending states cannot be allowed to violate those same rules. It’s not just a matter of constitutional law. It’s a matter of basic fairness.


.pdf   Texas Lawsuit 12 - 8- 20.pdf (Size: 839.08 KB / Downloads: 2)
Reply
#19
Game over or just another tricky day?

[Image: supreme-court-tx.jpg]
Reply
#20
(12-12-2020, 10:06 AM)Harrison J Bounel Wrote: Game over or just another tricky day?

At this point definitely just another tricky day.  As Dinesh D'Souza said, SCOTUS is signaling that the problem can and should be resolved in the state legislatures.  If this sort of thing happened more often people would have a better roadmap to follow.  They are still working out the proper methodology.  I'm looking forward to the implementation of EO 13848 on 12/18.  Also potentially available, either by itself or conjunction therewith, is the Insurrection Act, which is applicable when civil unrest has made it “impracticable” for the courts and broader justice system to operate normally.  Demorrhoid judges are playing right into Trump's hands when they make ridiculous rulings based on specious arguments.  Trump probably would prefer more conventional approaches, but in the face of the obvious, ubiquitous fraud he has plenty of ammo available to win this thing. 

Quote:What’s in the Executive Order on Election Interference?
By Ed Stein
Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 11:26 AM

On Sept. 12, President Trump signed Executive Order 13848, titled “Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.” Reporting in early August suggested that such an order was being drafted, though—as will be discussed below—it appears to have changed in some meaningful ways.

The document opens by finding that foreign persons’ “ability … to interfere in or undermine public confidence in [U.S.] elections … constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the [U.S.],” thus triggering the president’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), codified at 50 U.S.C. §1701. (For additional background on IEEPA in the sanctions context, see here. For additional background on IEEPA more generally, including surveys of past uses, see here, here and here).

Initial Determinations
Section 1 of the order establishes an interagency process for determining whether election interference has occurred. First, the director of national intelligence (DNI) has 45 days to determine—in consultation with appropriate agencies—whether “a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in [any election for Federal office].” Second, within 45 days after receiving the DNI’s assessment, the attorney general and secretary of homeland security—in consultation with appropriate agencies—are to send the president and the secretaries of state, defense and the treasury a report evaluating two questions:

(i) the extent to which any foreign interference that targeted election infrastructure materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, the tabulation of votes, or the timely transmission of election results; and

(ii) if any foreign interference involved activities targeting the infrastructure of, or pertaining to, a political organization, campaign, or candidate, the extent to which such activities materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, including by unauthorized access to, disclosure or threatened disclosure of, or alteration or falsification of, information or data.

The directive also requires the report to “identify any material issues of fact with respect to these matters that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are unable to evaluate or reach agreement on at the time the report is submitted.”

It is worth noting that Section 1 is focused almost exclusively on disruptions to “election infrastructure,” which the order later defines somewhat narrowly:

Quote:[T]he term “election infrastructure” means information and communications technology and systems used by or on behalf of the Federal Government or a State or local government in managing the election process, including voter registration databases, voting machines, voting tabulation equipment, and equipment for the secure transmission of election results.

To the extent that the determination under Section 1 is a necessary trigger for the imposition of sanctions under Sections 2 or 3, this definition be significant. (The Order notably requires the various interagency players to “develop a framework for the process that will be used to carry out their respective responsibilities pursuant to this order” within 30 days after it was signed.) However, as will be discussed below, the actual conduct triggers for designation are broader and could be used to capture other interference by foreign actors.

Sanctions
The directive adopts an unusual two-track approach for actual designations: one for foreign persons who actually engage in election interference and another for broader measures to target the states behind those efforts. Additionally, contrary to some reporting, it is not entirely clear that the order would mandate the automatic imposition of sanctions. As will be discussed below, the Treasury-led sanctions would require the identification of specific persons closely tied to election interference efforts. And the White House’s sanctions appear even more discretionary. In this regard, the order appears to be more of a signal that the guns are loaded and less of a notice that some kind of automatic doomsday machine has been activated. This is not without precedent. For example, on May 16, 2011 President Obama signed Executive Order 13611 “Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen.” Like Trump administration order, Obama’s order did not specifically designate any individuals at the time it was issued. Rather, it appears to have been part of a broader policy effort to help encourage a peaceful transition of power in Yemen. It was not until November 2014—over two years later—that any individuals were designated under the authority. Trump’s order seems to follow a similar model, signalling that the administration is ready to respond if necessary. However it may be a stretch to characterize the sanctions as “automatic,” especially when compared to the truly automatic sanctions which bills like the Deter Act (discussed below) would require.

Treasury-led process

Section 2 follows the model of a typical IEEPA-based sanctions EO: the Order establishes conduct-based criteria for designation and then delegates the implementation of sanctions to the Department of the Treasury. (For those interested, a number of sanctions-related EOs can be found here.) Specifically, Section 2 empowers the Secretary of the Treasury—in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security—to block the property under U.S. jurisdiction of foreign persons determined—

(i) to have directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in a United States election;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection [(i)] … or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

These prongs allow the Treasury Department to target specific perpetrators as well as their facilitators. However, they do not include a prong for “Internet-based disinformation efforts,” which reportedly had been included in an earlier draft. Additionally, the term “foreign interference” is defined later in the order:

Quote:[T]he term “foreign interference,” with respect to an election, includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful actions or attempted actions of a foreign government, or of any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, undertaken with the purpose or effect of influencing, undermining confidence in, or altering the result or reported result of, the election, or undermining public confidence in election processes or institutions …

While this is certainly broad enough to capture government-sponsored hacking, it does not go as far as the bipartisan Deter Act (discussed earlier here). For example, the Deter Act defined “interference” to include “[c]ontributions or expenditures for advertising, including on the internet,” as well as the use of “social or traditional media to spread significant amounts of false information.”

White House-led process

Section 3 of the order lays out a very different process. Unlike Section 2, Section 3 places the White House at the center of any decisions to implement sanctions beyond those who actually interfered and their facilitators:

Quote:[T]he Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate agencies, shall jointly prepare a recommendation for the President as to whether additional sanctions against foreign persons may be appropriate in response to the identified foreign interference and in light of the evaluation in the report mandated by section 1(b) of this order, including, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, proposed sanctions with respect to the largest business entities licensed or domiciled in a country whose government authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported election interference, including at least one entity from each of the following sectors: financial services, defense, energy, technology, and transportation (or, if inapplicable to that country’s largest business entities, sectors of comparable strategic significance to that foreign government). The recommendation shall include an assessment of the effect of the recommended sanctions on the economic and national security interests of the United States and its allies. Any recommended sanctions shall be appropriately calibrated to the scope of the foreign interference identified

The document then details the potential measures which could be imposed which include, among others, the blocking of property, restrictions on access to financial institutions, and “any other measures authorized by law.”

***
As Megan Reiss discusses in detail, the new order is quite different than the bills which are under consideration on Capitol Hill. For example, as a practical matter, Section 3 means that larger, state-punishing sanctions—the kind which the Deter Act requires to be automatically imposed if the director of national intelligence finds election interference—to be tailored to the actual interference which occured. Given the extraordinary scale of the potential measures in Section 3 and the Deter Act, this may be quite sensible. However, as Megan explains—and as Sens. Rubio and Van Hollen noted when the order was signed—a true deterrence policy may call for a different approach.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Massive Vote Fraud Albert Hidel 14 54,752 12-13-2012, 06:22 PM
Last Post: Virtual Bison
  OU Students in Vote Bounty Scheme Martin Eisenstadt 4 18,260 12-04-2009, 11:29 PM
Last Post: ham

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)