What Trump faces on Jan. 20, 2021
- Thread starter Old School
- Start date
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1hV8Ppy69g4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
+++++
+++++
Nobody cares what Tucker thinks. He's a GOP stooge that has been vaccinated but goes on air every night and tells his audience not to trust it.
Hope this helps! :0008
Hope this helps! :0008
- Mar 19, 2006
- 38,197
- 370
- 83
- 74
opcorn2Carlson, then an early-career conservative writer and commentator, made the judgment in an exchange with fellow Slate blogger, Evan Smith, who first labelled Trump a "repulsive" character.
"I'd love to add something even meaner to your description of Donald Trump ? he's the sort of person I want to keep kicking once he's down?but I don't think I can," Carlson wrote in his exchange with Smith. "You've said it all: He is the single most repulsive person on the planet."
https://www.businessinsider.com/tuc...repulsive-person-on-the-planet-in-1999-2021-7
it'a all about the personal agenda.
20 PROTESTORS STORM SENATE ONLY 9 ARRESTED Defiant Joyce Beatty detained by Capitol Police for allowing protesters in the Se
Officers arrested Rep. Joyce Betty, 71, after she led voting rights protesters into a Senate office building
They chanted, 'Fight for Justice,' and 'End the filibuster,' in the atrium of the Hart Senate building
They accuse Republicans of using the filibuster threat to ensure the For the People Act remains stalled
Police said they arrested nine people for 'demonstrating in a prohibited area on Capitol Grounds'
The protest came as the country divides between left and right over new laws governing ballots
Last week President Biden described Republican efforts to change voting laws as a 'threat to democracy' biden insighted this
see the similarties and hypocrys
Congressional Black Caucus chair Joyce Beatty tweeted in defiance after she was arrested by Capitol Police on Thursday afternoon for leading pro-voting rights protesters into a Senate office building.
'You can arrest me. You can?t stop me. You can?t silence me,' she tweeted.
Officers had moved in as Beatty, 71, and a handful of other activists, including Women's March co-founders Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory, chanted, 'Fight for justice,' and, 'End the filibuster.' ARE THEY STILL IN JAIL 6 MONTHS AFTER THE CRIME>>>> THEY WERE IN THE SENATE ILLEGALLY TO PROTEST AND LED IN BY A MEMBER...
BET NOT
Capitol Police later said they had arrested nine people for 'demonstrating in a prohibited area on Capitol Grounds.'
IMPORTANT FOR LATER
Beatty said her arrest was just the start.
'I stand in solidarity with Black women and allies across the country in defense of our constitutional right to vote,' she said in a statement.
'We have come too far and fought too hard to see everything systematically dismantled and restricted by those who wish to silence us.
Be assured that this is just the beginning. This is our Power, our message.?
Beatty laid out her stance in a string of tweets before she was arrested.
'Black women are demanding OUR right to vote! We?re marching to the Senate to send a strong message,' she posted before setting off.
Then at 3:42pm she added: 'We will not be turned around. We will keep walking.'
'We will fight for freedom. We will fight for our right to vote!'
About 20 Black activists joined lawmakers for the protest. 20 PROTESTORS STORM SENATE AND ONLY 9 ARRESTED and one of them was the REP??? noe hunting them down no arresting all of them !!!! this needs to be used by the lawyers for JAN 6 accused!!!!
[link to www.dailymail.co.uk (secure)]
so Biden insighted this and 20 people are let in by a rep and only 9 get arrested and one of those was the rep who let them in. NOT HUNTED DOWN BY FBI , NONE DETAINED IN JAIL FOR 6 MONTHS WITHOUT TRIAL...
THE LAWYERS FOR ALL THE JAN 6 CHARGED NEED TO USE THIS IN COURT!!!!
WHEN IS IT ENOUGH !!!!
Officers arrested Rep. Joyce Betty, 71, after she led voting rights protesters into a Senate office building
They chanted, 'Fight for Justice,' and 'End the filibuster,' in the atrium of the Hart Senate building
They accuse Republicans of using the filibuster threat to ensure the For the People Act remains stalled
Police said they arrested nine people for 'demonstrating in a prohibited area on Capitol Grounds'
The protest came as the country divides between left and right over new laws governing ballots
Last week President Biden described Republican efforts to change voting laws as a 'threat to democracy' biden insighted this
see the similarties and hypocrys
Congressional Black Caucus chair Joyce Beatty tweeted in defiance after she was arrested by Capitol Police on Thursday afternoon for leading pro-voting rights protesters into a Senate office building.
'You can arrest me. You can?t stop me. You can?t silence me,' she tweeted.
Officers had moved in as Beatty, 71, and a handful of other activists, including Women's March co-founders Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory, chanted, 'Fight for justice,' and, 'End the filibuster.' ARE THEY STILL IN JAIL 6 MONTHS AFTER THE CRIME>>>> THEY WERE IN THE SENATE ILLEGALLY TO PROTEST AND LED IN BY A MEMBER...
BET NOT
Capitol Police later said they had arrested nine people for 'demonstrating in a prohibited area on Capitol Grounds.'
IMPORTANT FOR LATER
Beatty said her arrest was just the start.
'I stand in solidarity with Black women and allies across the country in defense of our constitutional right to vote,' she said in a statement.
'We have come too far and fought too hard to see everything systematically dismantled and restricted by those who wish to silence us.
Be assured that this is just the beginning. This is our Power, our message.?
Beatty laid out her stance in a string of tweets before she was arrested.
'Black women are demanding OUR right to vote! We?re marching to the Senate to send a strong message,' she posted before setting off.
Then at 3:42pm she added: 'We will not be turned around. We will keep walking.'
'We will fight for freedom. We will fight for our right to vote!'
About 20 Black activists joined lawmakers for the protest. 20 PROTESTORS STORM SENATE AND ONLY 9 ARRESTED and one of them was the REP??? noe hunting them down no arresting all of them !!!! this needs to be used by the lawyers for JAN 6 accused!!!!
[link to www.dailymail.co.uk (secure)]
so Biden insighted this and 20 people are let in by a rep and only 9 get arrested and one of those was the rep who let them in. NOT HUNTED DOWN BY FBI , NONE DETAINED IN JAIL FOR 6 MONTHS WITHOUT TRIAL...
THE LAWYERS FOR ALL THE JAN 6 CHARGED NEED TO USE THIS IN COURT!!!!
WHEN IS IT ENOUGH !!!!
Kamala Harris failed to disclose her relationship to Sir Nigel Knowles, her husband Douglas Emhoff's former boss at DLA Piper, the law firm in London.
Sir Nigel is a fellow director of SGO Smartmatic with Lord Mark Malloch-Brown that controls the NV, WI, PA, GA, MI, WI voting machines from Dominion, Smartmatic, ES&S, Sequoia, Premier, Diebold, and Optech Voting machines responsible for the 2020 voting fraud.
[link to aim4truth.org (secure)]
Sir Nigel is a fellow director of SGO Smartmatic with Lord Mark Malloch-Brown that controls the NV, WI, PA, GA, MI, WI voting machines from Dominion, Smartmatic, ES&S, Sequoia, Premier, Diebold, and Optech Voting machines responsible for the 2020 voting fraud.
[link to aim4truth.org (secure)]
https://townhall.com/columnists/ste...er-bullies-americans-into-bad-policy-n2592590
Stacey Abrams?s ?Hot Call Summer? Bullies Americans into Bad Policy
Stefani Buhajla|Posted: Jul 18, 2021 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Stacey Abrams?s ?Hot Call Summer? Bullies Americans into Bad Policy
Source: AP Photo/John Amis
Votes cast from the grave. Manipulation of the elderly. Zuckerberg payola. Burning drop boxes. Missing ballots. Double-voting. Election administrators arrested for fraud. And a full week of ballot counting.
Despite all of this, Stacey Abrams assures us that the only election fraud we need to worry about is that which cheated her out of her bid for Georgia Governor in 2018. It's hypocrisy at its finest and, sadly, what we have come to expect from the Left.
In response to the numerous clear cases of fraud, states across the country have taken action to pass their own election integrity reforms. Measures like drop box security, banning private funding of election administrative offices, removing the dearly departed from voter rolls, and providing free IDs to voters are the commonsense steps leaders in the states are taking towards restoring trust in local elections and those who are subsequently elected.
Ms. Abrams and D.C. liberals can continue in their efforts to mislead voters on the truth about election fraud, or they can join the rest of America in acknowledging that there were?and are*?very real problems. If left unaddressed, compromised elections pose a threat to Americans? trust in government and the very foundation of our fragile republic.
This isn?t about the outcomes?this is about the future of our democratic process.
To Stacey Abrams, new voter protection laws are merely a thinly veiled assault on voting rights. Ms. Abrams is throwing her self-perceived political clout behind S.1, the For the People Act?a measure intended to usurp the Constitution and strip away states' ability to manage their own elections.
Every single page of this legislation is a disaster, but among its most egregious provisions is the sweeping elimination of all voter ID laws. Anyone will be allowed to obtain a ballot with a verbal statement of eligibility, and without having to show any proof who they really are.
It also mandates states implement same-day voter registration, leaving poll-workers no time to verify the identity or eligibility. Not that that matters, because S.1 also makes it a criminal offense to question a voter?s eligibility?even for legal reasons?on or before Election Day.
And S.1 will compromise registration processes by automatically registering ineligible voters, including teenagers under the age of 18. Automatic voter registration means people no longer have the choice to consent to being registered and, furthermore, it infringes on their privacy. It also removes penalties for non-citizens who register to vote and restricts states? ability to cross-check and update their voter rolls. Couple this with the aforementioned criminalization of questioning eligibility and no voter ID, and S.1 will open Pandora's box of election fraud.
It?s dangerous, and it?s out of touch with what most Americans want. Polling by the Opportunity Solutions Project found that a bipartisan majority of American voters do not want the states to lose control over their own election policies and processes. Voters were 70 percent less likely to support the For the People Act when they found out it could mean every state was forced to implement same-day registration. They were 74 percent less likely to support it when they learned it could result in 16-year-olds voting in elections. And, despite continued claims from the Left that voter ID is somehow inherently racist, polling from the Foundation for Government Accountability reveals there is bipartisan support for it among Black voters.
And further polling by the Foundation for Government Accountability echoes the preference for state-level control. A majority of Americans prefer their state legislature have oversight of ballots and election processes to prevent tampering and to protect minority communities
It?s no surprise Stacey Abrams would support a federal takeover of elections. Her political party stands to benefit the most from adding a string of loopholes to election law. But what she is really saying in her battle cries is that if you can?t win in the battle of ideas, use the federal government to steamroll the opposition so your party rules in perpetuity.
The secured-elections states are striving to benefit everyone and ensure that the voices of voters of all ages, races, and backgrounds are heard. Accurate voting rolls, polling security, and ballot protection don't just help ensure every vote is counted?but that every vote counts.
Ms. Abrams can text as many people on her dated donor lists as she wants, but her ?Hot Call Summer? won?t change the truth: The only way to protect every American?s fundamental right to vote is to do everything in our power to restore trust in our elections and prevent bad actors?and bad politicians?from manipulating the process for their own gain. To do that, S.1 must fail.
Stefani E. Buhajla is the communications director at the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) and the polling director for Opportunity Solutions Project (OSP).
Stacey Abrams?s ?Hot Call Summer? Bullies Americans into Bad Policy
Stefani Buhajla|Posted: Jul 18, 2021 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Stacey Abrams?s ?Hot Call Summer? Bullies Americans into Bad Policy
Source: AP Photo/John Amis
Votes cast from the grave. Manipulation of the elderly. Zuckerberg payola. Burning drop boxes. Missing ballots. Double-voting. Election administrators arrested for fraud. And a full week of ballot counting.
Despite all of this, Stacey Abrams assures us that the only election fraud we need to worry about is that which cheated her out of her bid for Georgia Governor in 2018. It's hypocrisy at its finest and, sadly, what we have come to expect from the Left.
In response to the numerous clear cases of fraud, states across the country have taken action to pass their own election integrity reforms. Measures like drop box security, banning private funding of election administrative offices, removing the dearly departed from voter rolls, and providing free IDs to voters are the commonsense steps leaders in the states are taking towards restoring trust in local elections and those who are subsequently elected.
Ms. Abrams and D.C. liberals can continue in their efforts to mislead voters on the truth about election fraud, or they can join the rest of America in acknowledging that there were?and are*?very real problems. If left unaddressed, compromised elections pose a threat to Americans? trust in government and the very foundation of our fragile republic.
This isn?t about the outcomes?this is about the future of our democratic process.
To Stacey Abrams, new voter protection laws are merely a thinly veiled assault on voting rights. Ms. Abrams is throwing her self-perceived political clout behind S.1, the For the People Act?a measure intended to usurp the Constitution and strip away states' ability to manage their own elections.
Every single page of this legislation is a disaster, but among its most egregious provisions is the sweeping elimination of all voter ID laws. Anyone will be allowed to obtain a ballot with a verbal statement of eligibility, and without having to show any proof who they really are.
It also mandates states implement same-day voter registration, leaving poll-workers no time to verify the identity or eligibility. Not that that matters, because S.1 also makes it a criminal offense to question a voter?s eligibility?even for legal reasons?on or before Election Day.
And S.1 will compromise registration processes by automatically registering ineligible voters, including teenagers under the age of 18. Automatic voter registration means people no longer have the choice to consent to being registered and, furthermore, it infringes on their privacy. It also removes penalties for non-citizens who register to vote and restricts states? ability to cross-check and update their voter rolls. Couple this with the aforementioned criminalization of questioning eligibility and no voter ID, and S.1 will open Pandora's box of election fraud.
It?s dangerous, and it?s out of touch with what most Americans want. Polling by the Opportunity Solutions Project found that a bipartisan majority of American voters do not want the states to lose control over their own election policies and processes. Voters were 70 percent less likely to support the For the People Act when they found out it could mean every state was forced to implement same-day registration. They were 74 percent less likely to support it when they learned it could result in 16-year-olds voting in elections. And, despite continued claims from the Left that voter ID is somehow inherently racist, polling from the Foundation for Government Accountability reveals there is bipartisan support for it among Black voters.
And further polling by the Foundation for Government Accountability echoes the preference for state-level control. A majority of Americans prefer their state legislature have oversight of ballots and election processes to prevent tampering and to protect minority communities
It?s no surprise Stacey Abrams would support a federal takeover of elections. Her political party stands to benefit the most from adding a string of loopholes to election law. But what she is really saying in her battle cries is that if you can?t win in the battle of ideas, use the federal government to steamroll the opposition so your party rules in perpetuity.
The secured-elections states are striving to benefit everyone and ensure that the voices of voters of all ages, races, and backgrounds are heard. Accurate voting rolls, polling security, and ballot protection don't just help ensure every vote is counted?but that every vote counts.
Ms. Abrams can text as many people on her dated donor lists as she wants, but her ?Hot Call Summer? won?t change the truth: The only way to protect every American?s fundamental right to vote is to do everything in our power to restore trust in our elections and prevent bad actors?and bad politicians?from manipulating the process for their own gain. To do that, S.1 must fail.
Stefani E. Buhajla is the communications director at the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) and the polling director for Opportunity Solutions Project (OSP).
Georgia Secretary Of State Explains Why He?s Just Now Discovering More Than 10,000 Illegal Votes Cast In 2020
The Federalist ^ | July 16, 2021 | Margot Cleveland
During a detailed discussion with The Federalist on Wednesday, representatives from the Georgia Secretary of State?s office provided their perspective on new evidence suggesting more than 10,300 Georgian voters illegally cast ballots in the November 2020 general election.
Last week, The Federalist reported on recently obtained data indicating tens of thousands of Georgia voters had violated Section 21-2-218 of the state?s election code, which requires residents vote in the county in which they reside, unless they had changed their residence within 30 days of the election.
Shortly after the November 2020 election, Mark Davis, the president of Data Productions Inc. and an expert in voter data analytics and residency issues, determined from National Change of Address records that nearly 35,000 Georgia voters who indicated they had moved from one Georgia county to another voted in the 2020 general election in the county from which they had moved.
Kurt Hilbert, one of President Trump?s lead attorneys in the Georgia case, told The Federalist that this category of potentially illegal votes served as one of the 33 categories of voting irregularities underlying the president?s challenge to the Georgia election results. Specifically, in his 64-page complaint accompanied by thousands of pages of sworn affidavits and expert reports filed against the Georgia Secretary of State in early December last year, Trump alleged the state violated 21-2-218 by allowing ?at least 40,279 individuals to vote who had moved across county lines at least 30 days prior to Election Day and who had failed to properly re-register to vote in their new county after moving.? The complaint further alleged that the state ?improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election.?
Trump?s claims of violations of Section 21-2-218, as well as the numerous other challenges, however, were never heard, Hilbert told The Federalist, because the chief judge of Fulton County, Chris Brasher, failed to appoint a legally eligible judge to hear the case until a month after the lawsuit was filed, making a trial on the president?s election challenge impossible. Then, after a judge was finally appointed late on December 31, the trial was scheduled for January 8 ? two days after Congress would open and certify the Electoral College votes. Given the timing of the hearing, which effectively mooted the case, and the Secretary of State?s Office?s promise to meet with his legal team, Trump dropped his lawsuit challenging Georgia?s election.
That Investigation Continues As The Federalist reported last week, Davis still continued to research the issue. In May, Davis obtained an updated voter database from the Secretary of State?s Office and ?found that, of the approximately 35,000 Georgians who indicated they had moved from one county to another county more than 30 days before the November general election, as of May, more than 10,300 had updated their voter registration information, providing the Secretary of State the exact address they had previously provided to the USPS.? Further, ?those same 10,000-plus individuals all also cast ballots in the county in which they had previously lived.?
In May, Davis shared this data with the Secretary of State?s Office, which agreed to launch an investigation into potential violations of Georgia?s election laws. Davis is convinced that the total number of residents who confirm their move was permanent ? as opposed to merely students or military members who temporarily relocated ? will eventually meet and then exceed President Biden?s margin of victory in Georgia, showing that Trump could have won a challenge to the Georgia election results had a court heard his case.
After the Federalist article ran, the Secretary of State?s Office, which had failed to provide responses to multiple questions posed by The Federalist by publication time, arranged for several staffers to provide background information, as well as providing access to the head investigator Frances Watson.
?According to the Law? Is Pretty Clear The Secretary of State?s Office confirmed that the investigation into the approximately 35,000 residents who moved from one county to another more than 30 days before the election remains ongoing. However, when pushed to confirm the preliminary point ? that voters who moved from one county to another county more than 30 days before the November election, but voted in their prior county, had voted illegally under 21-2-218 ? an attorney with the Secretary of State?s Office stated the question was not that simple.
Section 21-2-218 must be read in light of 21-2-224, the Georgia officials stressed, and that latter provision, according to the Secretary of State?s Office, requires a clerk to allow electors named on the voter list to deposit their votes in the ballot box. However, Section 21-2-224 on which the Secretary of State?s Office relies, only requires electors be allowed ?to deposit their ballots according to the law,? and it is difficult to fathom how that provision could alter the clear mandate of Section 21-2-218 for voters to vote in their county of residence.
It is not for the Secretary of State?s Office to say whether such votes constitute illegal votes, the lawyer stressed, noting in the office?s view that is a question for a Georgia court. The Secretary of State?s Office acknowledged, however, that a court could declare an election void if a candidate established that voters representing the total margin of victory had not been legal voters, although adding that Georgia courts have said that being on a National Change of Address list is not in itself enough to challenge a voter.
On the specifics of the investigation, the Secretary of State?s Office would only say that of the 10,300 voters Davis had identified who later updated their voter registrations, 86 percent identified as having moved counties but then voting in the prior county in person, with only 14 percent casting an absentee ballot. Of those who voted by absentee ballot, about 360 had the absentee ballot sent to their prior address.
Is the State ?Investigation? Serious? Watson, however, would not say what further steps the office was taking to investigate. She also refused to state whether the office would send questionnaires to the more than 10,300 individuals who later updated their voting registration, as the Secretary of State?s Office had done for in its investigation of individuals who moved out of state prior to the November 2020 general election. But following completion of the investigation, the Secretary of State?s Office will present its findings to the state election board, which will determine the appropriate remedy and next steps, including whether prosecution is warranted.
The Secretary of State?s Office also refused to answer whether it had undertaken any investigation into the validity of these votes prior to certifying the election results, telling The Federalist that is not the right question and stressing that the Secretary of State?s Office focuses on rooting out fraud and that its role is not to contest elections.
However, two of President Trump?s attorneys in the Georgia election lawsuit told The Federalist that both before and after the election contest was filed, the Secretary of State?s Office refused all efforts to address this and other illegal categories of voting identified by the president?s legal team and hindered their attempts to contest the election and resolve serious concerns regarding illegal votes cast and counted on November 3, 2020.
Cleta Mitchell, now a senior legal fellow for election integrity at Conservative Partnership Institute, helped lead the Georgia challenge. She told me ?the Georgia secretary of state completely stonewalled every allegation of illegal votes.? ?He just kept saying, ?We have information that disputes these claims,?? Mitchell added, referring to the Secretary of State?s Office, ?but he never made that information available.?
The Secretary of State?s Office, however, maintained that the information Trump?s legal team sought was confidential voter information which they were prohibited by law from sharing. In response to Trump?s request to sit down and review the data, the Secretary of State?s Office said it would not sit down with the legal team to show why their data was wrong while the lawsuit was ongoing. Hilbert told me the ?Secretary of State?s office stated repeatedly that ?their data? (super-secret data) is correct, and the president?s data is incorrect (without showing why or how ? and never producing any data comparison).?
?Of course, that conclusion is now proving to be false as new data is vindicating what was alleged,? Hilbert told The Federalist, in reference to Davis?s May 2021 analysis confirming more than 10,300 of the voters updated their voter registrations indicating their move was permanent.
Illegal Voting Happens All the Time, Secretary?s Office Says While this new evidence indicates more than 10,300 voters illegally cast their ballots in the 2020 election, during the nearly hour-long interview the Secretary of State?s Office stressed that the same issue flagged by Davis had likely occurred in every election since the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) became law and likely also occur in every state. And before the 2020 election, the Secretary of State?s Office noted, Raffensperger lobbied for changes to the NVRA to allow him to update the voter rolls. Earlier this year, in an interview with John Solomon Reports, Raffensperger also blamed that law, which bans voting-list maintenance within 90 days of an election, for preventing him from purging outdated voters during 2020.
In a statement to The Federalist, Raffensperger added that ?I?ve been calling for reform of these laws for years. I?m glad Davis, The Federalist, and the Congressional Republicans who could have done something before the November election, are finally listening to my concerns.?
While acknowledging that the 1993 Voter Registration Act prevents list maintenance 90 days before an election, Davis told The Federalist that nothing prevents the Secretary of State?s Office from running the NCOA more frequently then reminding voters that if they moved permanently, they must update their voter registration. ?In fact, this will enfranchise voters by ensuring they retain the legal right to vote,? Davis told The Federalist.?
Davis also suggested the Secretary of State?s Office provide the list to county boards of elections so they can ask voters to confirm their residency when they appear to vote. Davis had encouraged Raffensperger to make more frequent use of NCOA processing in a white paper drafted for the Secretary of State shortly after his election.
Passing the Buck Davis also agreed the Secretary of State?s Office may not have been able to resolve any investigation into illegal voting before certifying the vote, but said they should not have then claimed that data was flawed, since they apparently did not have current NCOA results to back up that claim. Nor should Raffensperger have insisted the problems with illegal voting did not affect the outcome of the election. ?Without thoroughly investigating these issues, they have no way of knowing the breadth of the problems,? Davis told The Federalist.
The Secretary of State?s Office countered that rather than looking back now on voters who cast ballots in 2020, challenges should be made before an election. After the election, the Secretary of State?s Office explained, what it has is merely NCOA information indicating a change in county ? but no evidence that the move was permanent?and that evidence is offset by the oath voters take when they cast a ballot that they reside in the county.
Before an election, however, the Secretary of State?s Office stressed, under Section 21-2-230 of the Georgia election code, any ?elector? (which is the legalese for a voter), in the county may ?challenge the right of any other elector of the county or municipality, whose name appears on the list of electors, to vote in an election.? Then, if there is probable cause to believe a voter no longer lives in a county, a hearing must be held and a decision made following that hearing, which could include a finding that the voter no longer resides in the county and thus cannot vote in that county.
Fulton County, Again The irony here is that before the November 2020 general election, Georgia voters attempted to do just that, presenting Fulton County officials in July of 2020 a list of 16,000 voters on the voting roll for the county who no longer lived in the county. Ray Smith III, who represented the state House caucus in these efforts, told me that at first the county ignored the request and then officials claimed they were too busy to address the challenges before the election.
Smith then filed suit against Fulton County, and presented the court with evidence establishing the registered voters had permanently moved, including, among other things, affidavits from the current residents at the addresses of the registered voters that attested, under oath, the person registered to vote at that address did not live there. But in September of 2020, the judge who heard the case ruled it was too close to the election to resolve the challenges.
Unfortunately, ?once early voting began, we saw some of these same voters we had challenged begin casting ballots in Georgia, even though they no longer lived in the state, were not students, and we had clear evidence they had a permanent address in another state,? Smith told me.
Then, after the general election and before the January 2021 Senate run-off election, additional Georgia voters attempted to challenge individuals listed on county voting rolls who had moved more than 30 days before the scheduled election, pursuant to Section 21-2-230. However, most Georgia counties that received challenges refused to address those challenges, while two counties that did move forward on the challenges, Ben Hill County and Muscogee County, were sued by Majority Forward.
Democrats Fight Election Integrity Efforts Majority Forward, a Democratic Party-aligned group dedicated to voter registration and voter turnout operations, sued those Georgia counties claiming addressing voter challenges under Section 21-2-230 violated the federal National Voter Registration Act. Federal judge Leslie A. Gardner ? the sister of Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams ? denied Majority Forward and the various individual voters? motion for a preliminary injunction in Ben Hill County, but granted in part, a preliminary injunction against Muscogee County, enjoining the removal of voters from the rolls.
Fair Fight, Inc.?the organization established by Democrat Stacey Abrams in 2014?also attempted to preempt pre-election challenges to determine the legal status of voters by suing True the Vote as well as Mark Davis and several other individuals. Fair Fight?s lawsuit claimed that by challenging the right of electors to vote in a specific county, the defendants had violated Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it illegal to ?harass or intimidate voters.?
While a federal court denied Fair Fight, Inc.?s motion for a preliminary injunction before the January 2021 run-off election, finding that Fair Fight, Inc. had not established a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the court stressed that ?this case is not yet over.? Presiding federal Judge Steve Jones, a Barack Obama appointee, added that the ?eleventh-hour challenge to the franchise of more than 360,000 Georgians is suspect. So too is the manner in which Defendants mounted their challenges. The Court will not abide attempts to sidestep federal law to disenfranchise voters. Nor will it tolerate actors brandishing these voter challenges to intimidate and diminish the franchise, for such acts diminish democracy itself.?
What Judge Jones ignored, however, is the reality that every illegal voter disenfranchises a legal voter. And what Republicans ignore is the reality that right now Democrats and their partners in the press ? under the guise of protecting the right to vote ? are poised to push through H.R. 1, which will gut the currently existing, and woefully inadequate, laws that provide a minimal level of protection to voting integrity.
So, yes, we need to revisit the Georgia election to show the problem with illegal votes. And yes, Raffensperger should not have proclaimed after the November 2020 election that there were not enough illegal votes to affect the presidential election?s outcome. Trump also should not have exaggerated the extent of voter fraud, which now makes it more difficult for the public to learn the evidence of illegal voting.
At this point, however, what matters is that the truth is exposed and that Republicans come together to ensure the integrity of future elections ? and expose the Democrats? attempts to disenfranchise legal voters with illegal and fraudulent votes.
The Federalist ^ | July 16, 2021 | Margot Cleveland
During a detailed discussion with The Federalist on Wednesday, representatives from the Georgia Secretary of State?s office provided their perspective on new evidence suggesting more than 10,300 Georgian voters illegally cast ballots in the November 2020 general election.
Last week, The Federalist reported on recently obtained data indicating tens of thousands of Georgia voters had violated Section 21-2-218 of the state?s election code, which requires residents vote in the county in which they reside, unless they had changed their residence within 30 days of the election.
Shortly after the November 2020 election, Mark Davis, the president of Data Productions Inc. and an expert in voter data analytics and residency issues, determined from National Change of Address records that nearly 35,000 Georgia voters who indicated they had moved from one Georgia county to another voted in the 2020 general election in the county from which they had moved.
Kurt Hilbert, one of President Trump?s lead attorneys in the Georgia case, told The Federalist that this category of potentially illegal votes served as one of the 33 categories of voting irregularities underlying the president?s challenge to the Georgia election results. Specifically, in his 64-page complaint accompanied by thousands of pages of sworn affidavits and expert reports filed against the Georgia Secretary of State in early December last year, Trump alleged the state violated 21-2-218 by allowing ?at least 40,279 individuals to vote who had moved across county lines at least 30 days prior to Election Day and who had failed to properly re-register to vote in their new county after moving.? The complaint further alleged that the state ?improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election.?
Trump?s claims of violations of Section 21-2-218, as well as the numerous other challenges, however, were never heard, Hilbert told The Federalist, because the chief judge of Fulton County, Chris Brasher, failed to appoint a legally eligible judge to hear the case until a month after the lawsuit was filed, making a trial on the president?s election challenge impossible. Then, after a judge was finally appointed late on December 31, the trial was scheduled for January 8 ? two days after Congress would open and certify the Electoral College votes. Given the timing of the hearing, which effectively mooted the case, and the Secretary of State?s Office?s promise to meet with his legal team, Trump dropped his lawsuit challenging Georgia?s election.
That Investigation Continues As The Federalist reported last week, Davis still continued to research the issue. In May, Davis obtained an updated voter database from the Secretary of State?s Office and ?found that, of the approximately 35,000 Georgians who indicated they had moved from one county to another county more than 30 days before the November general election, as of May, more than 10,300 had updated their voter registration information, providing the Secretary of State the exact address they had previously provided to the USPS.? Further, ?those same 10,000-plus individuals all also cast ballots in the county in which they had previously lived.?
In May, Davis shared this data with the Secretary of State?s Office, which agreed to launch an investigation into potential violations of Georgia?s election laws. Davis is convinced that the total number of residents who confirm their move was permanent ? as opposed to merely students or military members who temporarily relocated ? will eventually meet and then exceed President Biden?s margin of victory in Georgia, showing that Trump could have won a challenge to the Georgia election results had a court heard his case.
After the Federalist article ran, the Secretary of State?s Office, which had failed to provide responses to multiple questions posed by The Federalist by publication time, arranged for several staffers to provide background information, as well as providing access to the head investigator Frances Watson.
?According to the Law? Is Pretty Clear The Secretary of State?s Office confirmed that the investigation into the approximately 35,000 residents who moved from one county to another more than 30 days before the election remains ongoing. However, when pushed to confirm the preliminary point ? that voters who moved from one county to another county more than 30 days before the November election, but voted in their prior county, had voted illegally under 21-2-218 ? an attorney with the Secretary of State?s Office stated the question was not that simple.
Section 21-2-218 must be read in light of 21-2-224, the Georgia officials stressed, and that latter provision, according to the Secretary of State?s Office, requires a clerk to allow electors named on the voter list to deposit their votes in the ballot box. However, Section 21-2-224 on which the Secretary of State?s Office relies, only requires electors be allowed ?to deposit their ballots according to the law,? and it is difficult to fathom how that provision could alter the clear mandate of Section 21-2-218 for voters to vote in their county of residence.
It is not for the Secretary of State?s Office to say whether such votes constitute illegal votes, the lawyer stressed, noting in the office?s view that is a question for a Georgia court. The Secretary of State?s Office acknowledged, however, that a court could declare an election void if a candidate established that voters representing the total margin of victory had not been legal voters, although adding that Georgia courts have said that being on a National Change of Address list is not in itself enough to challenge a voter.
On the specifics of the investigation, the Secretary of State?s Office would only say that of the 10,300 voters Davis had identified who later updated their voter registrations, 86 percent identified as having moved counties but then voting in the prior county in person, with only 14 percent casting an absentee ballot. Of those who voted by absentee ballot, about 360 had the absentee ballot sent to their prior address.
Is the State ?Investigation? Serious? Watson, however, would not say what further steps the office was taking to investigate. She also refused to state whether the office would send questionnaires to the more than 10,300 individuals who later updated their voting registration, as the Secretary of State?s Office had done for in its investigation of individuals who moved out of state prior to the November 2020 general election. But following completion of the investigation, the Secretary of State?s Office will present its findings to the state election board, which will determine the appropriate remedy and next steps, including whether prosecution is warranted.
The Secretary of State?s Office also refused to answer whether it had undertaken any investigation into the validity of these votes prior to certifying the election results, telling The Federalist that is not the right question and stressing that the Secretary of State?s Office focuses on rooting out fraud and that its role is not to contest elections.
However, two of President Trump?s attorneys in the Georgia election lawsuit told The Federalist that both before and after the election contest was filed, the Secretary of State?s Office refused all efforts to address this and other illegal categories of voting identified by the president?s legal team and hindered their attempts to contest the election and resolve serious concerns regarding illegal votes cast and counted on November 3, 2020.
Cleta Mitchell, now a senior legal fellow for election integrity at Conservative Partnership Institute, helped lead the Georgia challenge. She told me ?the Georgia secretary of state completely stonewalled every allegation of illegal votes.? ?He just kept saying, ?We have information that disputes these claims,?? Mitchell added, referring to the Secretary of State?s Office, ?but he never made that information available.?
The Secretary of State?s Office, however, maintained that the information Trump?s legal team sought was confidential voter information which they were prohibited by law from sharing. In response to Trump?s request to sit down and review the data, the Secretary of State?s Office said it would not sit down with the legal team to show why their data was wrong while the lawsuit was ongoing. Hilbert told me the ?Secretary of State?s office stated repeatedly that ?their data? (super-secret data) is correct, and the president?s data is incorrect (without showing why or how ? and never producing any data comparison).?
?Of course, that conclusion is now proving to be false as new data is vindicating what was alleged,? Hilbert told The Federalist, in reference to Davis?s May 2021 analysis confirming more than 10,300 of the voters updated their voter registrations indicating their move was permanent.
Illegal Voting Happens All the Time, Secretary?s Office Says While this new evidence indicates more than 10,300 voters illegally cast their ballots in the 2020 election, during the nearly hour-long interview the Secretary of State?s Office stressed that the same issue flagged by Davis had likely occurred in every election since the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) became law and likely also occur in every state. And before the 2020 election, the Secretary of State?s Office noted, Raffensperger lobbied for changes to the NVRA to allow him to update the voter rolls. Earlier this year, in an interview with John Solomon Reports, Raffensperger also blamed that law, which bans voting-list maintenance within 90 days of an election, for preventing him from purging outdated voters during 2020.
In a statement to The Federalist, Raffensperger added that ?I?ve been calling for reform of these laws for years. I?m glad Davis, The Federalist, and the Congressional Republicans who could have done something before the November election, are finally listening to my concerns.?
While acknowledging that the 1993 Voter Registration Act prevents list maintenance 90 days before an election, Davis told The Federalist that nothing prevents the Secretary of State?s Office from running the NCOA more frequently then reminding voters that if they moved permanently, they must update their voter registration. ?In fact, this will enfranchise voters by ensuring they retain the legal right to vote,? Davis told The Federalist.?
Davis also suggested the Secretary of State?s Office provide the list to county boards of elections so they can ask voters to confirm their residency when they appear to vote. Davis had encouraged Raffensperger to make more frequent use of NCOA processing in a white paper drafted for the Secretary of State shortly after his election.
Passing the Buck Davis also agreed the Secretary of State?s Office may not have been able to resolve any investigation into illegal voting before certifying the vote, but said they should not have then claimed that data was flawed, since they apparently did not have current NCOA results to back up that claim. Nor should Raffensperger have insisted the problems with illegal voting did not affect the outcome of the election. ?Without thoroughly investigating these issues, they have no way of knowing the breadth of the problems,? Davis told The Federalist.
The Secretary of State?s Office countered that rather than looking back now on voters who cast ballots in 2020, challenges should be made before an election. After the election, the Secretary of State?s Office explained, what it has is merely NCOA information indicating a change in county ? but no evidence that the move was permanent?and that evidence is offset by the oath voters take when they cast a ballot that they reside in the county.
Before an election, however, the Secretary of State?s Office stressed, under Section 21-2-230 of the Georgia election code, any ?elector? (which is the legalese for a voter), in the county may ?challenge the right of any other elector of the county or municipality, whose name appears on the list of electors, to vote in an election.? Then, if there is probable cause to believe a voter no longer lives in a county, a hearing must be held and a decision made following that hearing, which could include a finding that the voter no longer resides in the county and thus cannot vote in that county.
Fulton County, Again The irony here is that before the November 2020 general election, Georgia voters attempted to do just that, presenting Fulton County officials in July of 2020 a list of 16,000 voters on the voting roll for the county who no longer lived in the county. Ray Smith III, who represented the state House caucus in these efforts, told me that at first the county ignored the request and then officials claimed they were too busy to address the challenges before the election.
Smith then filed suit against Fulton County, and presented the court with evidence establishing the registered voters had permanently moved, including, among other things, affidavits from the current residents at the addresses of the registered voters that attested, under oath, the person registered to vote at that address did not live there. But in September of 2020, the judge who heard the case ruled it was too close to the election to resolve the challenges.
Unfortunately, ?once early voting began, we saw some of these same voters we had challenged begin casting ballots in Georgia, even though they no longer lived in the state, were not students, and we had clear evidence they had a permanent address in another state,? Smith told me.
Then, after the general election and before the January 2021 Senate run-off election, additional Georgia voters attempted to challenge individuals listed on county voting rolls who had moved more than 30 days before the scheduled election, pursuant to Section 21-2-230. However, most Georgia counties that received challenges refused to address those challenges, while two counties that did move forward on the challenges, Ben Hill County and Muscogee County, were sued by Majority Forward.
Democrats Fight Election Integrity Efforts Majority Forward, a Democratic Party-aligned group dedicated to voter registration and voter turnout operations, sued those Georgia counties claiming addressing voter challenges under Section 21-2-230 violated the federal National Voter Registration Act. Federal judge Leslie A. Gardner ? the sister of Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams ? denied Majority Forward and the various individual voters? motion for a preliminary injunction in Ben Hill County, but granted in part, a preliminary injunction against Muscogee County, enjoining the removal of voters from the rolls.
Fair Fight, Inc.?the organization established by Democrat Stacey Abrams in 2014?also attempted to preempt pre-election challenges to determine the legal status of voters by suing True the Vote as well as Mark Davis and several other individuals. Fair Fight?s lawsuit claimed that by challenging the right of electors to vote in a specific county, the defendants had violated Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it illegal to ?harass or intimidate voters.?
While a federal court denied Fair Fight, Inc.?s motion for a preliminary injunction before the January 2021 run-off election, finding that Fair Fight, Inc. had not established a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the court stressed that ?this case is not yet over.? Presiding federal Judge Steve Jones, a Barack Obama appointee, added that the ?eleventh-hour challenge to the franchise of more than 360,000 Georgians is suspect. So too is the manner in which Defendants mounted their challenges. The Court will not abide attempts to sidestep federal law to disenfranchise voters. Nor will it tolerate actors brandishing these voter challenges to intimidate and diminish the franchise, for such acts diminish democracy itself.?
What Judge Jones ignored, however, is the reality that every illegal voter disenfranchises a legal voter. And what Republicans ignore is the reality that right now Democrats and their partners in the press ? under the guise of protecting the right to vote ? are poised to push through H.R. 1, which will gut the currently existing, and woefully inadequate, laws that provide a minimal level of protection to voting integrity.
So, yes, we need to revisit the Georgia election to show the problem with illegal votes. And yes, Raffensperger should not have proclaimed after the November 2020 election that there were not enough illegal votes to affect the presidential election?s outcome. Trump also should not have exaggerated the extent of voter fraud, which now makes it more difficult for the public to learn the evidence of illegal voting.
At this point, however, what matters is that the truth is exposed and that Republicans come together to ensure the integrity of future elections ? and expose the Democrats? attempts to disenfranchise legal voters with illegal and fraudulent votes.
Maybe the Dems should look into all the fraudulent Republican votes? Guarentee there will be more "malfeasance" than these clowns have "uncovered".
:mj07:
:mj07:
Why is the forum idiot posting about Kamala Harris and Stacey Abrams in a thread about Donald Trump facing charges for being a tax cheat?
If anything, he should Thank Me for the FREE Education I am giving him, plus he's lost his game, he's as WEAK as they come.
Pity Really
Nuff Said
At least he didn't BRAG about Voting for Gary Johnson. :142smilie
Free education into how stupid and gullible half this country is. You've definitely shown him that.
PS: I voted for Hillary when I saw what a fucking disaster Trump would be. He made me a Democrat.
Tax cheat and his daughter to testify under oath later this month. :toast:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-faces-questions-net-worth-182333848.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-faces-questions-net-worth-182333848.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/longtime-...o-expected-plead-guilty-tax/story?id=88416077
Weisselberg is in cuffs. He will plead guilty tomorrow. Great call, Cricket!
How many indictments and convictions do you guys need to realize Trump is a fucking criminal?
