5331 private links
The election fraud drum needs to be banged until every American is aware of the MASSIVE election fraud during the 2020 elections. The implications are profound for future elections, and indeed, for every future action by federal and state governments, for if elections can be stolen with impunity, then we are no longer living in a constitutional Republic subject to the will of the people. Rather, we are living in a government-corporate oligarchy, as aptly described in a wonderful commentary by Angelo Codevilla. And the only way to resurrect our Republic is to slay the election fraud dragon! //
The Left’s message to the public is that there were no consequential 2020 Presidential election malfeasance, irregularities or illegalities — supposedly because the courts objectively and thoroughly investigated those claims, and ruled them to be unfounded.
Neither element of that assertion is even remotely true.
If the Biden Justice Department had gone this route, it would not have been able to publish that press release and the FBI Agent’s Affidavit with 24 pages detailing the horror story of a few knuckleheads on social media doing stupid memes which would only influence stupid people. By putting it all in the Affidavit which is a publicly filed document, DOJ allowed the media to run with it in covering this matter of utmost national significance — that Twitter users thought Hillary Clinton supporters were stupid enough to believe that the law had been changed so that they could vote for Hillary by sending her name via Text Message to some unnamed destination.
Let’s hear again about the politicization of the Justice Department under Donald Trump — I’m up for a good laugh on a Friday.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday said hearing that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would not preside over former President Trump's upcoming impeachment trial "crystalized" the GOP argument that the proceedings are unconstitutional.
Paul emerged as a hero for Trump supporters this week after he used a little-known procedural tactic, a privileged constitutional point of order, to strike a severe blow to Democrats' hopes of convicting the former president on a House-passed article of impeachment.
Forty-five Republican senators voted this week to support Paul's motion that said Trump's impeachment trial is unconstitutional since he's no longer in office. //
Paul said the news that Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would preside over the second impeachment trial struck many Republicans as deeply unfair. Leahy voted to convict Trump on two articles of impeachment last year.
"The optics of the chief justice not coming and then also the optics of a person who had favored the last impeachment now presiding over the trial - who's also going to vote in the trial - it just didn't look right or sound right to any of us," he added.
The Virginia Board of Elections rule allowing officials to count ballots that arrived without a postmark up to three days after the election was illegal, a state judge ruled.
Virginia Circuit Court Judge William Eldridge ruled the state’s late mail-in ballot law violated state statute and permanently banned the law in future Virginia elections, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) announced Monday. PILF sued the state’s board of elections in October on behalf of Thomas Reed, a Frederick County, Virginia election official. //
The board of elections proposed the rule during an Aug. 4 meeting and related guidance was sent to election officials statewide on Aug. 13 informing them of the change. PILF sued on behalf of Reed on Oct. 9, according to a news release.
On Oct. 28, one week before the Nov. 3 federal elections, Eldridge blocked the law due to the PILF lawsuit. Virginia was therefore prevented from counting late ballots without postmarks, PILF spokesperson Logan Churchwell told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
2020 Presidential Election Lawsuits Related to Election Integrity (Public Version 1-28-21)
Trump as Plaintiff:
Case Name and Number Date Filed Topic * Decided on Merits ** State Issue(s) Disposition Ruling Favored Date of Last Order Status
When it was his turn to speak, Paul gave a blistering speech, denouncing Democrats for dragging the nation through yet another unfounded and politically-motivated impeachment drama. He started by delivering a brutal verbal clothesline, “Democrats claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former president, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity. This impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to divide the country further.”
“This sham of an impeachment will ostensibly ask whether Trump incited the reprehensible violence of Jan. 6., when he said, ‘I know everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.’ Peacefully and patriotically. Those are hardly words of violence,” Paul said. //
But what of Democrat words? What of Democrat incitement to violence? No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise and volunteer coach. The shooter nearly pulled off a massacre. I was there because he fervently believed the false and inflammatory rhetoric spewed by Bernie and other Democrats, such as “the Republican health care plan for the uninsured is that you die.”
As this avowed Bernie supporter shot Steve Scalise, nearly killing him and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he screamed: “This is for health care.” //
“Republicans, to our credit, have never once thought it legitimate to formally censor or impeach these Democrats. No Republican has sought to use the government to hold these Democrats responsible for Antifa and Black Lives Matter of violence that has consumed our cities all summer, resulting in over a billion dollars of destruction, looting and property damage,” he added. //
Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul
The Senate just voted on my constitutional point of order.
45 Senators agreed that this sham of a “trial” is unconstitutional.
That is more than will be needed to acquit and to eventually end this partisan impeachment process.
This “trial” is dead on arrival in the Senate.
2:26 PM · Jan 26, 2021
In the first set of Executive Orders signed today by Joe Biden was the reversal of a DOJ policy put in place by Attorney General Jeff Sessions which prohibited provisions in settlement agreements in civil litigation that directed the opposing party to pay the money from the settlement to some third-party interest group that DOJ believed could put the money to better use than having it go into the Treasury of the United States.
This was a practice that came into vogue during the Obama Administration. The government would bring a civil action against some offending corporation, and then offer the corporation an opportunity to settle the dispute with a condition that required the corporation to pay some or all of the settlement money to a third party designated by the government. //
Attorney General Jeff Sessions banned the practice after he took office. Legislation was later introduced in Congress — the “Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017” — which would have prohibited government officials from including any such provision in settlement agreements involving the Department of Justice. The legislation passed the House but was never acted upon by the Senate. //
The Biden Administration — before there is even a new Attorney General — has decided to resurrect that old grift in order to get the spigot of money turned back on for left-wing interest groups who look to the Justice Department to be their collection agency.
Across the internet and social media I’m reading a variety of stories about how the Justice Department and the Courts are managing the process of arresting dozens — maybe a hundred or more — persons being charged in connection with protesters storming the Capitol on January 6. Let me clear up some confusion on the process and how things are playing out in the initial proceedings which are happening in courts all across the country — and that is the first issue everyone needs to understand about what is taking place.
It’s hard to care about bootprints sunk in soil 238,900 miles away as humanity suffers the combined burden of an unforgiving virus and a political unease. But how humans treat those bootprints and the historic lunar landing sites upon which they are found will speak volumes about who we humans are and who we seek to become.
On Dec. 31, the One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space Act became law. As far as laws go, it’s pretty benign. It requires companies that are working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on lunar missions to agree to be bound by otherwise unenforceable guidelines intended to protect American landing sites on the Moon. That’s a pretty small pool of affected entities. However, it is also the first law enacted by any nation that recognizes the existence of human heritage in outer space. //
But what about a derelict spacecraft, like the Eagle, the Apollo 11 lunar lander? Do we really want to rely on “due regard” to prevent the intentional or inadvertent destruction of this inspiring piece of history? This object memorializes the work of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who worked to put a human on the Moon, the astronauts and cosmonauts who gave their lives in this quest to reach the stars, and the quiet heroes, like Katherine Johnson, who fueled the math that made it so.
The lunar landing sites – from Luna 2, the first human made object to impact the Moon, to each of the crewed Apollo missions, to Chang-e 4, which deployed the first rover on the far side of the Moon – in particular bear witness to humanity’s greatest technological achievement thus far. They symbolize all we have accomplished as a species, and hold such promise for the future. //
The One Small Step Act is true to its name. It’s a small step. It applies only to companies that are working with NASA; it pertains only to U.S. lunar landing sites; it implements outdated and untested recommendations to protect historic lunar sites implemented by NASA in 2011. However, it offers significant breakthroughs. It is the first legislation from any nation to recognize an off-Earth site as having “outstanding universal value” to humanity, language taken from the unanimously ratified World Heritage Convention.
Section 230 even provides for a section regarding illegal activity on the internet. If the President made a specific threat, which is an illegal action, that could have been turned over to law enforcement for investigation and prosecution. The problem is that the social media companies are defining what is a threat, and simply state they perceive Trump’s rhetoric to be so, not that it actually qualifies as such. This also is another example of editorial control, as they have redefined, beyond the legal definition that could be prosecuted, what a threat is. Again, this sets up these companies from self-denial of the protections contained in Section 230.
In fact, Section 230 states that the goal is “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal and State regulation. Now, these companies want to argue that although they are free of Federal and State regulation, they are free to regulate their own services as they see fit, essentially rendering those services outside of the free market. When Amazon unilaterally decides that Parler is not entitled to the protections from Section 230, but they are in denying Parler those same protections, they are in a way, invalidating their own access to the protections. Sure they are free to choose with whom they do business, but they cannot suggest that they are a part of a “vibrant and competitive free market” while denying services to a firm, which is also protected from liability within Section 230.
Is Parler not an “interactive computer service?” Are they not entitled to the protections of Section 230? If they are, and I want to be very thorough here, WHAT GIVES APPLE, GOOGLE, AMAZON, OR ANY OTHER INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDER THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THAT THEY NEED TO EDIT, DELETE OR OTHERWISE CONTROL THE CONTENT ON PARLER, WHEN THE STANDARD ISN’T THE SAME FOR OTHERS? Again, they want to be able to hide behind Section 230 protections to deny another company of their own right to Section 230 protections. It is certainly cowardice if not criminal.
GOP elected officials have now faced the reality that Big Tech wants the GOP to cease being an effective political opposition. Big Tech actively suppressed true and significant facts in the NY Post story on Hunter Biden, and at the same time willingly hosted and promoted fascist rhetoric and calls to violence by groups like BLM and Antifa with no content controls It is unequivocally a threat to the GOP as a political opposition to the Democrats which Big Tech supports.
Barack Obama needed the cover of darkness, a weekend, and a congressional procedural maneuver using a budget reconciliation bill to pass Obamacare on a party-line vote when he had 59 Senators and a 79 seat majority in the House.
Big Tech is now in the position of relying on the Democrats in Congress for protection when they have a 50 senators and a 10 seat majority in the House, all while staring at a mid-term election which history says will be won by GOP candidates in greater numbers than the outcome two months ago.
All of that may not matter ultimately, as the Supreme Court could get there first.
Looks like we could be witnessing the final hours of Parler:
“Every vendor from text message services to email providers to our lawyers all ditched us too on the same day”
“Matze conceded that the bans could put the company out of business”
Under Georgia law, if the losing party prevails as the plaintiff in an election contest, the remedy is to conduct a new election. Georgia law does not allow for changing the outcome of an election — it only invalidates the results of the prior election.
Today is the 30th day since the Trump campaign followed all the provisions of Georgia law which set forth a clear procedure for Pres. Trump to prove with evidence in a court the claims that invalid votes were cast and counted in Georgia for Joe Biden in sufficient numbers to have determined the outcome of the election. If the Campaign can’t prove with competent evidence that was the case, then he will lose the election contest. But, as of now, that hasn’t happened. In fact, nothing has happened.
This is really mis-guided. "Objecting" is a political act. It's provided for by statute. It leads to debate over the bases for the objection. It's not a courtroom -- it's on the floor of a legislative body performing Constitutional duty. //
To rule that procedure out of bounds in advance is itself undemocratic.
The bill A416, obviously meant to deal with the Wuhan virus, allows for the detention of any carrier of a disease (or contacts that person has had) to be detained in a medical facility or “other apporpriate facility or premises designated by the governor.” The governor or his designee can simply have anyone locked up under this if he puts out the order. Talk about troubling and dangerous.
The lawsuit alleges Twitter defamed the computer store owner in an attempt to justify its censorship of The New York Post’s story on Hunter Biden selling access to his father.
: So if the company had a policy to destroy client documents under certain circumstances in the ordinary course of business, that policy predated the Enron problems, and the company was destroying Enron documents consistent with that policy, they were committing a crime BEFORE they received a subpoena for the records?
Weissmann: Yes.
Q: Following a policy for any client not in the news would be ok, but following the same policy for Enron prior to getting a subpoena sends you to jail or puts you out of business — even when you stop the moment you get the subpoena?
Weissmann: Yes.
The Supreme Court said the correct answer was “No.” //
The outer limits of this element need not be explored here because the jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing. Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required. For example, the jury was told that, “even if [petitioner] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [petitioner] guilty.” App. JA–213. The instructions also diluted the meaning of “corruptly” so that it covered innocent conduct. Id., at JA–212. //
The Supreme Court Justices who joined in rejecting “Weissman’s Law” were:
Chief Justice Rehnquist — wrote the opinion.
Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas
Justice O’Connor
Justice Kennedy
Justice Souter
Justice Stevens
Justice Ginsburg
Justice Breyer
Not a single Justice wrote a concurring opinion. Not one wrote separately to say “I agree with the outcome, but I disagree with the opinion of the Chief Justice for the following reasons….”
Every Justice REJECTED Weissmann’s view of “criminality” without hesitation.
Ari Fleischer
@AriFleischer
This makes no sense. A judge (the sister of Stacey Abrams) ruled that when someone tells the US Postal Service they have moved they still can vote from their old address.
Rules have no meaning any more. This is nuts.
“This is not about airing your grievances,” Peters pushed back. “I don’t know what rabbit hole you’re going down.”
Johnson blasted Peters for his denial, where a shouting match ensued.
“You talked about Russian disinformation,” Johnson repeated, before moving on to grant Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul the floor.
Johnson’s Wednesday lecture comes as the committee opened up a hearing to consider the voting irregularities that took place in the recent November election which featured record turnout in the form of mail-in voting.
Sen. Paul called for hearings that included state lawmakers to shore up security in subsequent elections and criticized those dismissing claims of voter fraud entirely.
“We can’t just say it didn’t happen,” Paul said at the hearing with the nation’s former cybersecurity chief Christopher Krebs. “The fraud happened. The election in many ways was stolen, and the only way it will be fixed is by in the future reinforcing the laws.”
Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley complained that after four years of non-stop accusations by Democrats that President Donald Trump was an agent of the Russian government, they had the audacity to condemn Republicans investigating pandemic irregularities at the ballot box.
“The whole Russia nonsense was based on we now know lies from a Russian spy,” Hawley said. “After four years of that, being told that the last election was fake and that Donald Trump wasn’t really elected and that Russia intervened, after four years of that, now these same people are told you just sit down and shut up. If you have any concerns about election integrity, you’re a ‘nut case’… That is not a recipe for success in this country.”
DeeInFL BlkConservative
a day ago edited
Biden only won 17% of the counties Obama won. I’m supposed to believe a population explosion occurred only in those areas? It will be interesting what the 2020 census says. Biden not only did worse in every city than Obama but worse than Clinton. Her numbers were worse than Obama. The only cities that Biden did better than Obama was in the swing states where it counted. These area are overwhelming black voters. I would like to know who the black voter was that wasn’t excited to vote for the first black President but decided that a white 78 year old man who has been in politics for 49 years and authored the crime bill that put their family members and friends in jail motivated them to vote. I wish the media would find these black voters and interview them. I’m curious for an answer. Also Biden received less than 90% of the black vote making it nearly impossible for a Democrat to win. He received less than 60% of the Hispanic vote making it implausible to win in NV, NM and AZ. Since the 1800’s, no President who won FL and OH lost the election sans JFK. JFK’s presidential win has long had alleged corruption and fraud, especially in Chicago under Mayor Daley. Entire news stories and books have been written about it. Why were there over 480,000 votes for Biden and no down ballot votes in the swing states? There were 10’s of thousands in GA where the Senate race was very important and critical to who will control the Senate. They will be critical to passing legislation for Biden’s agenda. Why not vote for the Democrat Senators and Representatives to make sure Biden can get things done? Yet Trump only had 538 ballots in GA that were Trump only. Were the Democrat voters too ignorant to realize that they could be handing control to the Republicans in Congress and thereby stonewalling Biden’s agenda? It’s a fair question to ask since liberals have for the past 4 years called Trump voters stupid.