Monday, November 30, 2020

Thomas More Society Files Lawsuit In Michigan

The Thomas More Society is seeking to prevent the leftist Secretary of State from certifying the election, claiming that over 500K ballots were cast illegally in the state. PJ Media has the details:

Michigan Illegally Counted or Ignored 500K Ballots, Lawsuit Claims

In the wee hours of Thanksgiving Day, the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society filed an explosive election lawsuit asking Michigan’s Supreme Court to prevent Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson from certifying the election results until the Michigan legislature can fully investigate fraud claims and to force election officials to hand over all election materials to the legislature for this purpose. The lawsuit claims that officials illegally counted or threw out no fewer than 508,016 ballots, far more than Joe Biden’s 154,000-vote margin over Donald Trump.

“State and local officials brazenly violated election laws in order to advance a partisan political agenda,” Phil Kline, director of The Amistad Project, said in a statement. “The pattern of lawlessness was so pervasive and widespread that it deprived the people of Michigan of a free and fair election, throwing the integrity of the entire process into question.”

Once again the Amistad Project is drawing attention to the role of Mark Zuckerberg. In Michigan, unlike in some other states (WI and GA) it is not alleged that this was illegal per se, however the argument is made that Zuckerberg's money disadvantaged areas of Michigan outside Detroit and specifically advantaged Democrat interests. The argument is that it was "improper" for the municipal government to engage in blatantly partisan politics by accepting the money:

Links To Good Election Challenge Updates

It's hard to keep up with everything that's going on, so here are three worthwhile links (plus one, following). I selected these--all from TGP--because they point to significant issues that highlight the strong likelihood of fraud. The final link features a Georgia legal strategy quote from Shipwreckedcrew.

Let's go:

That would definitely be a clue. And in addition to those 17K+ voters, he found an additional nearly 58K voters who voted in counties other than the one where their listed address is located. And of that 58K 75% did NOT vote in person. What a surprise! And as for the 17K+ batch, these were to non-military addresses and 89% were over the age of 25--so presumably not students.

I'm including this link because it highlights what others have suggested was a regular technique for transferring votes to Biden more or less 'under the radar': awarding votes to Libertarian loser Jo Jorgenson and then siphoning all or almost all of those votes off to Biden.

This final link includes a really very good video presentation that was featured at the hearings in AZ.

The title is, of course, self explanatory, but Waldron gives a very articulate explanation of it all. He also talks about the overall almost total lack of security when these Dominion machines are connected to the internet. Which they were--that's how Waldron was able to confirm the traffic between Dominion and Frankfurt.

Is Ticket-Splitting The Ticket? Don Surber Calls BS!

Last Saturday the NYT ran a "story" that was supposed to explain how it was that 2020 was such a banner year for the GOP--yet Trump somehow lost to a cellar dwelling, corrupt, half wit: 

How Democrats Suffered Crushing Down-Ballot Losses Across America

In statehouse races, suburban voters’ disgust with President Trump failed to translate into a rebuke of other Republicans, ensuring the party’s grip on partisan mapmaking.

See? We're supposed to believe that heavily Republican suburban counties voted massively straight GOP ballots--except that they hated Trump so much that they voted for Biden. Not only that, but these laser like targeted split ballots showed up ... only in a handful of states. Convinced? Me neither. Here's how the NYT tries to gaslight its readers--notice the colorful language that gives the game away:

Special Agents From Attorney General's Office Visit GOP Poll Watcher

Attorney General, as in Bill Barr? I very much suspect NOT. I think it was Attorney General as in Josh Shapiro. Josh Shapiro is the Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Bill Barr doesn't have Special Agents attached to his office, to be dispatched to harass GOP poll watchers who give interviews. But I think Josh Shapiro does. Is it too much for Hate Barr First commenters to exercise a bit of discretion?

Sunday, November 29, 2020

UPDATED: Federal Judge In GA 'Freezes' Dominion Machines

This is definitely a victory. I'm not sure where it leads. Perhaps they can compare settings in different counties, not sure:

At a minimum it shows there's at least one federal judge who was impressed enough with the Powell complaint to take significant action. Here's a link for Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.

UPDATE 1: The freeze is off. Judge says, hey, wait, the machines are controlled by the counties, not the defendants, so I can't order the defendants to control the machines. I guess that makes sense. You can read more here. In any event, he was seemingly impressed with the complaint.

UPDATE 2: Third order, Dominion machines are "frozen" in Cobb, Gwinnett, and Cherokee counties, GA.

Lack Of Prosecution: Ethical Standard Or Not?

Haha! That was a trick question. The answer is easy: Lack of prosecution is an ethical standard--well, somtimes--for Dems, but not for GOPers.

Jonathan Turley explains how that works:

You can read Turley's article if you're into liberal hypocrisy. Here's his intro from his blog:

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the media treatment of the Hunter Biden controversy in Ukraine. I continue to marvel at the non sequitur in the mantra that there is “no evidence of wrongdoing” in the contract. What does that mean? Is the sole measure whether the Ukrainians (or even the U.S.) would prosecute a contract as a crime? Wrongdoing would seem to cover any form of corruption or influence peddling — whether or not it constitutes a crime. The fact is that the payment of sweetheart deals to the spouses and siblings is common in both the Ukraine and the United States. Does that make it right? The suggestion is that there is nothing wrong with this contract. 

Wrongdoing would seemingly include ethical violations and not just what Ukraine would prosecute as a crime (a curious standard for one of the most corrupt countries on Earth). Indeed, many of us have criticized Trump for sometimes suggesting that the criminal code as the measure of presidential conduct. With Biden, Democrats seem to be doing the same thing in dismissing any objections since “it is all perfectly legal.” If that is the case, then most of the criticism of Trump’s conduct can be dismissed as devoid of “evidence of wrongdoing.”

Go Figure!

But while you're trying to make sense of this graph, remember that "this claim of election fraud is disputed."

Justin Hart is a big time data expert and you can read LOTS MORE of what he has to say about data anomalies in the election tabulation at Just The News:

Data expert: Vote tabulation feeds in PA, GA show 'anomalies' suggesting Trump missing votes

“There's a lot of anomalies in that data ... When you go look at, for example, the training videos on Dominion, you realize how quickly all this can go south." -Justin Hart, data expert

And just for fun, once you've got that one figured out, try this one on for size:

Still puzzled. How about this?

All-Time Propaganda Achievement Award?

It really is pretty impressive, when you think about it. You'd have to go back to Goebbels to find anything comparable.

From Robert Wright's Fragile and Unsustainable Lies:

Precisely because it is ostensibly private and domestic, America’s mass media, tarnished as its reputation is becoming, retains more credibility than any state-run media ever possessed. Many pundits have noted how 2020 resembles 1984, except the propaganda so far has come from a political resistance movement backed by parts of the government (FBI, CDC) rather than “the” state per se. 

The phalanx of private media and sundry have convinced tens of millions of Americans that: 

  • we are better off imposing lockdowns that cause far more harm than the virus itself (and sundry cognates, like the virus is super serious and novel, spreads easily via asymptomatic people, yet is stopped by irrational policies like curfews, as if people won’t simply start drinking earlier!); 
  • the current president is somehow illegitimate (Russian election interference, Ukrainian quid pro quo); 
  • nation-altering Constitutional reforms are necessary (de facto elimination of the electoral college, creation of additional states, SCOTUS enlargement); 
  • calling all people of Euroamerican descent racist isn’t itself racist;
  • a virus can differentiate between good protests (pro-BLM and pro-Biden) and bad ones (anti-lockdown and pro-Trump);
  • the American people chose a candidate who essentially did not campaign or set forth a coherent policy platform over one who, for all his faults, was president when the economy finally palpably improved and made enough progress in the Middle East to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Most impressive of all has been the way the mass media censored or downplayed Biden’s many weaknesses, his deplorable record on race, his almost half-century of self-serving political machinations, and his family’s dealings with Ukraine and China.

Thankfully, the Truth always prevails, it is just a matter of when and how. When the real world is heavily involved, Lies quickly die.

For four years or more it's been one hoax after another, and 10s of millions have bitten each time. It's a remarkable record of success.

MULTIPLE UPDATES: Sunday Morning: FBI Taking Action?

Thanks to commenter EZ for bringing Matt Braynard's tweets to my attention, as I've been out of pocket as usual. As EZ remarks in his comment, it definitely appears that the FBI is getting involved, based on clear indications of fraud. This may be a salutary caution to those who assume that because they don't receive regular text/email updates from AG Barr that no action is under way. At the same time Braynard takes a cautious approach--the request he documents here is not a guarantee of effective action. Nevertheless, for the time being it's a positive step:

Matt Braynard



- The @FBI  has proactively and directly requested from me the VIP findings that indicates illegal ballots. 

- By Tuesday, we will have delivered to the agency all of our data, including names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.

- While there has been legit criticism of the actions of leaders of the agency over the last several years, I can personally attest to the many patriots within the rank-and-file who are fighting on the side of the Constitution and Law and Order.

Note: everything I pass on to local/state/fed law enforcement, litigants, legislatures, journalists, etc, is always a copy. 

And despite sharing it with individuals from all of those groups, there's never guarantee of a productive result.

UPDATE: OK, so what does this mean?

First, context. We know that within a few days of the election two things happened at DoJ/FBI. 

First, AG Barr's Deputy AG--to whom Director Wray answers on a day to day basis--issued a policy clarification that stated that FBI agents are allowed to carry firearms inside election centers. That was a clear indication that the FBI had received complaints about election fraud or violations of federal election laws and was attempting to respond. That response might have been to simply seek further information to determine whether a federal violation was in play, but the fact that there was an early FBI response to complaints is the important point.

Second, shortly thereafter AG Barr took action that forced the head of the Election Fraud Branch at DoJ to "resign". The situation was that this official, Richard Pilger (linked to past Dem scandals), had clearly been obstructing DoJ/FBI response to the election related complaints that were coming in. Once again, this was a clear indication of action being taken.

The significance of this action is almost certainly that Pilger had been seeking to block investigations that local FBI and US Attorney offices wanted to set in motion. Pilger, through his guidelines, was in a position to block requests to obtain subpoenas. Barr's prompt action allowed the local USA/FBI offices to take the action they deemed appropriate and necessary based on their own knowledge, without having to clear their actions through Pilger.

In addition to those early indicators, we know that there have been criminal referrals to the FBI from private parties. Certainly this occurred in Clark County, Nevada, but I believe it has taken place in other jurisdictions, as well.

With that context in mind, here's my best guess.

My best guess is that the FBI, in consultation with local US Attorneys and, most likely, DoJ, has made the determination that there is a basis for believing that criminal violations of election laws have occurred and that a Full Investigation is warranted. That determination was most likely made some time ago. Exactly what violations are being looked at is a matter for speculation, but the request for Braynard's best information tells us what some of those violations are.

My belief regarding why the request was made to Braynard is fairly simple. Braynard, with his past expertise in election data gathering, was able to quickly amass an enormous amount of relevant data--including identifying data for numerous witnesses and indications of whether those witnesses would likely be cooperative. The FBI would naturally want to contact relevant witnesses to the violations they were investigating so, rather than reinvent the wheel, they decided in the interests of time saving, to obtain Braynard's information. The next step is to set out leads to all FBI offices to contact witnesses in their jurisdictions. Investigative work can't be confined simply to the contested states, since witnesses may have moved, literally, anywhere in the world.

The other factor here is important to keep in mind. We know about these developments because the FBI has been in touch with private parties. It's entirely possible, even likely, that the FBI has also received information from other government entities--local, state, federal. In most cases we would not be aware of that, so we can only speculate. Where this will all lead is also a matter for speculation. One thing is for sure--no matter how much Braynard and others have accomplished (and it is hugely impressive), the FBI and DoJ totally dwarf private investigators in investigative capabilities.

For what it's worth, let me point out that Trump--who has not been shy about deploring lack of public action on the Russia Hoax--has NOT called out either DoJ or the FBI with regard to the election. At least not that I'm aware of. Not institutionally, and not by personal names--such as Bill Barr.

UPDATE: Shipwreckedcrew has learned that the agent who contacted Braynard is from the FBI'S Los Angeles Field Office (h/t commenter atxnfo):

My take on that is a bit different than SWC's. My guess is that this relates to the referral from Las Vegas. As I recall, that referral was based on the issue of double voting--numerous CA residents were found to have voted in both CA as well as NV (where they had second residences). It would make sense for FBI LA to acquire Braynard's information in order to locate and interview those CA residents. For info, here is the territory covered by FBI LA:

Along with our main office in Los Angeles, we have 10 satellite offices, known as resident agencies, in the area.

  • Lancaster
    • County covered: Northeastern Los Angeles 
  • Long Beach
    • County: Southern Los Angeles
  • Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
    • County: Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
  • Orange County
    • County: Orange
  • Palm Springs
    • County: Eastern Riverside
  • Riverside
    • Counties: Riverside and San Bernardino
  • Santa Maria
    • Counties: Santa Barbara (partial jurisdiction) and San Luis Obispo
  • Ventura
    • County: Santa Barbara (partial jurisdiction) and Ventura
  • Victorville
    • County: San Bernardino
  • West Covina
    • County: Eastern Los Angeles

Saturday, November 28, 2020

MAJORLY UPDATED: Highly Recommended Election Fraud Videos

You can find a series of these videos at TGP. They require a bit of an eagle eye--you need to watch the running totals at the top/bottom of the screen and there's only minimal explanation. See what you think--I thought the first example in PA was particularly striking (Trump -20K, Biden +20K in the blink of an eye), as well as the final one in WI (a question of percentages):

Four Videos – Four States Where Votes Were Switched Live on TV Away from President Trump to Biden

As is, unfortunately, not unusual with TGP, the title doesn't necessarily match up exactly with the substance. But it's still worth checking out.

UPDATE: This is important for anyone who isn't familiar with Matt Braynard's work on this post-election. I've mentioned Braynard repeatedly, and his work is being used in many of the challenges. Epoch Times has a big article that will get you up to speed on his methodology, which focuses on the variations of voter fraud using absentee ballots and mail-in ballots:

Election Findings Could ‘Easily’ Overturn 3 States, Data Analyst Concludes

Here are some excerpts that focus on his conclusions:

WASHINGTON—The former data and strategy director for President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign says he has found enough evidence to suggest the election results could be “easily” turned to favor the current president.

“I have no confidence that Joe Biden is the deserved winner of this election, based on our findings, ...”


Braynard assembled a team just days after the election to look for inconsistencies in six contested states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada.

The group initially identified 1.25 million voter issues and followed up on them through phone calls and by cross-checking data against other databases.Braynard assembled a team just days after the election to look for inconsistencies in six contested states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada.

The group initially identified 1.25 million voter issues and followed up on them through phone calls and by cross-checking data against other databases.


One of Braynard’s biggest findings involved voters who had submitted a National Change of Address form to the post office, indicating they had moved out of state, yet appeared to have voted in 2020 in the state they moved from.

In Georgia, the team found 138,221 such people, which represents a much larger number than the state’s current vote differential (12,670) in the presidential race.

In Michigan, there were 51,302 such people; Wisconsin had 26,673, Nevada had 27,271, Arizona had 19,997, and Pennsylvania had 13,671.


In the five states that required a requested [mail-in] ballot, Braynard’s team found a significant number of people whom the state marked as having requested a ballot but not having returned it. Upon contacting those people, Braynard said many of them told his call team that they hadn’t requested a ballot at all. Others said they had requested and returned the ballot, but it hadn’t been marked as received or counted.

In Arizona, 44 percent of the people reached by phone said they hadn’t requested a mail-in ballot, despite the state receiving a completed ballot in their name.

In Michigan, that number was 24 percent; in Pennsylvania, 32 percent; and in Wisconsin and Georgia, 18 percent.

“Those are pretty startling numbers, ..."

That seems fair to say, doesn't it? So while the MSM tries to convince you that there's nothing to see? There's LOTS to see, and it's being dragged out into the light of day.

Highly Recommended: A Primer On Burden Of Proof

With all this talk about evidence and proof with regard to all the different suits alleging voter and election fraud, Andrea Widburg has written a very nice primer on how burden of proof issues apply in these cases: The burden of proof should favor Trump in election fraud litigation. I highly recommend it to anyone who needs a refresher on this crucial topic.

Widburg's starting point is this very important Trump tweet:

Widburg frames her explanation as a metaphor on a game of tennis:

Imagine that the plaintiff and the defendant are on opposite sides of a tennis court. The plaintiff serves first.

With that first serve, the plaintiff has to get his evidence – his proof about the facts he’s alleging -- over the net onto the defendant’s side of the court. If the case requires only a preponderance of evidence, the evidence just needs to clear the net. If the standard is clear and convincing evidence, it needs to go about halfway onto the defendant’s side of the court. And if the plaintiff must prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence must go to the furthest edge of the defendant’s side.

Since these are not criminal cases, we can ignore that last part about "beyond a reasonable doubt."

How about the defendant, the Dems? In terms of Widburg's tennis metaphor, the Dem return just needs to get over the net--but how does that work? This is how:

Friday, November 27, 2020

Briefly: Carter Page Sues All The Bad FBI Boys And Girls

I'll give a link to FR (wink, wink), and you can go from there to Twitchy if you want:

BAM! Carter Page files $75 million lawsuit against James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and others

Page is being represented by Leslie McAdoo Gordon, with whom you'll be familiar. Perhaps as significant as this announcement is this:

For details on the lawsuit, consult Margot Cleveland.

Is Navid Keshavarz-Nia The Kraken?

TGP has a link to the affidavit of an expert consultant to Sidney Powell in her legal challenges to the election. Here's the TGP blog--it's been up for a while but I've been occupied reading a variety of stuff, including the affidavit:

HUGE! Sidney Powell Witness Whom NY Times Described as “Always the Smartest Person in the Room” Concludes Hundreds of Thousands of Votes Transferred from Trump to Biden IN ALL BATTLEGROUND STATES

Keshavarz-Nia, it turns out, is the hero of a NYT article from just this past September, 2020, which TGP quotes:

17. Navid Keshavarz-Nia, those who worked with him said, “was always the smartest person in the room.” In doing cybersecurity and technical counterintelligence work for the C.I.A., N.S.A. and F.B.I., he had spent decades connecting top-secret dots. 

This is the conclusion of the affidavit that TGP quotes:

I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in a hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to Vice President Biden. These alterations were the result of systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to achieve the desired results. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.

Where is that evidence? Because it's not enough to cite vulnerabilities--you have to show a likelihood that the fraud actually happened. The evidence Keshavarz-Nia cites is in paragraph 15. Here's a link to the 9-page affidavit, which also gives Keshavarz-Nia's full background.

I'm not qualified to assess the evidence, but others may be able to. I've pasted in paragraph 15 and have highlighted what appear to me to be significant parts of the argument. Naturally, the findings in this paragraph follow upon the preceding portions of the affidavit, but I can't paste it all in:

It's Personal. VERY Personal.

A few days ago in The New SCOTUS I took a brief look at the Supreme Court's ruling on a request by Catholics and Jews in New York City for emergency injunctive relief from the threat of draconian restrictions on Free Exercise of Religion, under the pretext of public safety orders by Cuomo. What interested me at the time--and, of course, still does interest me--was the clear signaling that with the arrival of Justice Amy as a full participating justice on the Court a new conservative bloc of five justices had emerged. CJ Roberts was clearly the odd man out--likely unneeded by the five conservative justices, unable to shape their opinions with his behind the scenes string pulling. 

Liberal heads have been exploding ever since. Most proximately, they see their cherished Covid lockdown powers threatened. As I also stressed, however, they must also recognize that any Trump legal challenges to the 2020 election will likely receive a sympathetic hearing, whatever the ultimate outcome.

Further, the rumblings that The New SCOTUS would be ready to take on the Left's war on Free Exercise of Religion with no-holds-barred rulings seems a clear threat on the horizon. Those anticipated rulings are likely to broadly threaten many of the Left's tools of social control. As well, a recent appellate case on the 2nd Amendment rights of non-violent felons is said to be perfectly teed up for the SCOTUS. Roberts has spent the past year or two fending off taking those cases, to the pretty much undisguised irritation of the conservative justices. Now the conservative justices will be able to pretty much dictate what cases the Court will take. And Court packing will not happen to save the day for the Left.

A notable feature of the Covid ruling was that Justice Gorsuch took the opportunity to let CJ Roberts know that he (Gorsuch) doesn't particularly like or respect Roberts. In fact, Gorsuch went out of his way to make it pretty clear that he wants Roberts--and pretty much the entire world that pays attention to Supreme Court cases--to know that. Roberts is reaping the fruit of his manipulative ways, and there's not much he can do about it for the foreseeable future.

That personal aspect is one of the aspects of this case that Shipwreckedcrew devotes quite a bit of space to in his latest article:

Signature Matching For Thee But Not For Me

Strict signature matching when it suits Dems, otherwise ...

Amistad Project Files Suit In Michigan

Unfortunately, at this point I haven't seen the complaint, so I can't say how much this suit may have in common with the suits that the Thomas More Society's Amistad Project has already filed in WI and GA. However, I view this as good news, because thus far the legal steps the Amistad Project has taken appear to be well thought out and based on solidly ascertained facts. John Solomon's Just The News provides a summary, but I expect there's much more to the suit:

"The pattern of lawlessness was so pervasive and widespread that it deprived the people of Michigan of a free and fair election, throwing the integrity of the entire process into question," said Phil Kline, Director of the Amistad Project.


Among the specific areas that the suit focuses on is, unsurprisingly, an absentee ballot initiative undertaken by the SoS, Jocelyn Benson, in violation of state law:

Instead of heeding the process contoured by the Michigan Legislature, Benson sent "unsolicited absentee ballot applications to every household in the state without verifying whether the intended recipients were still residing at the same location, whether they were eligible to vote in 2020, or even whether they were still alive."


UPDATED: Why Was The Vote Fraud Nationwide?

Call me slow on the uptake. Last week I saw a graph of the Illinois election. It showed that at a certain point in the night the Libertarian Party received a vote spike. It wasn't a minor spike--it was equivalent to 2% of the total IL vote, in one fell swoop. Over the course of the night, however, it mostly bled away to Biden. 

I asked myself: Why? This looked like an obvious theft--in 2020 the Third Party vote (Jo Jorgenson) collapsed to 1.1%, compared to combined minor party totals in 2016 of 5.1%. Obviously, Trump was picking up many of those voters. Just as obviously, one of two things had happened to account for that wildly improbable spike: Either those votes were siphoned from Trump and laundering to Biden through Jorgenson, or they were simply manufactured and then dealt out gradually to Biden. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any follow up on this.

Now, at the point in time in question Biden was cruising to a comfortable victory in Deep Blue Illinois. What wasn't so comfortable was that Trump was running well ahead of his 2016 pace and Biden was running somewhat behind Hillary's winning pace in 2016.

With that in mind, I saw a synopsis of a Ron Brownstein article at The Atlantic this morning that included this:

Joe Biden's walloping victory in the popular vote didn't translate down-ballot.

We're all familiar with this implausible phenomenon. Brownstein, of course, wasn't intending to draw attention to the implausibility of it, but to emphasize the narrative that Biden had indeed won a "walloping victory" in the popular vote. Even if the election is still not decided (except in the Media). It was then that I, slow on the uptake, realized the reason that The Steal went down even in Deep Blue states like Illinois: The Dems needed to prevent the Red Wave from handing Trump a popular vote victory in order to preserve their narrative that they are the majority party and any Republican share in governance in illegitimate. That narrative goes to their hoped for trashing of our constitutional order: Court packing, abolition of the Electoral College, packing the Senate with PR and DC, etc.

I suspect that if this happened in Illinois, a thorough examination of the election results on a national basis will reveal similar steals in other Blue states, designed simply to run up popular vote totals. 

UPDATE 1: From the article linked by commenter American Cardigan (below), we learn about Dominion--run by radical Leftists like Eric Coomer--and its collusion with the Chicago Election Board. The article includes a video with Coomer in it. They used Covid as an excuse to allow complete access of Dominion to voter info--Chicago Election Board Provided Dominion Complete Access for 2020 Election:

This move by the CEB allowed Dominion Voting Systems contractor personnel, including election systems administrators and technicians from Dominion, full remote access to Chicago’s election systems, files, and databases from anywhere at any time.

Dominion Voting Systems administrators had free, open, and unfettered access to Chicago’s election systems, files, and data for 7-1/2 months prior to the election. They had full access to all voter registration information poll books, requests for absentee ballots, voter mailout lists, and virtually everything related to elections.

One assumes--this one certainly does--that this was going on nationally.

UPDATE 2: Another example of what probably went on in many Blue areas, this time from Clark County, NV:

New affidavit notes 'historically strange' surge in incomplete Nevada voter registrations

A data scientist testifies that thousands of Nevadans listed casinos and temporary RV parks as their 'homes'


Dorothy Morgan, the data scientist in the affidavit, said that she observed a "historically strange" surge in voter registrations that were missing the sex and age of the voter. When those pieces of information are left blank, it is impossible for a poll worker to verify a voter's identity.

In 2016, Morgan said that she saw 68 voter registrations of the sort described above. In 2020, she says she saw more than 13,000 -- 74% of which were submitted between July and September of this year.

In the affidavit, which was originally provided to the Washington Examiner, Morgan wrote, "This investigation found over 13K voters whose voter registration information revealed no sex or date of birth. Not only does this mean we cannot verify whether these voters are old enough to vote, it is also historically strange: While one does not expect voter registration information to be perfect, it is very strange that there were very, very few of these kinds of imperfect records with missing or invalid information until this year – when there are 13,372 of them."

Moderate Dog? Manchurian Dog!

President Trump famously used to refer to the erstwhile "Maddog" Mattis as "Moderate Dog"--having, unfortunately, taken the measure of the man only after Mattis had been confirmed as SecDef. Now we learn that he's even worse--he's a shill for the Red Chinese. It's the Obama military. Via Don Surber:

Just the News reported, "In an online column denouncing President Trump's "America First" policy that includes measures regarding Beijing, ex-Defense Secretary James Mattis did not disclose his affiliation with an organization that fosters international business deals with communist China.

"As coauthor with three other writers in a Nov. 23 Foreign Affairs column, Mattis did not mention that he works for the The Cohen Group consulting firm. Nor did he challenge China's tough talk against U.S. policies regarding Taiwan, nor the strict economic retaliation Beijing levied against Australia.

"Instead, Mattis criticized Trump administration policies toward Beijing. Such policies, touted by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, are not in line with The Cohen Group's approach toward international business dealings with Beijing."

 There are, unfortunately, plenty more left like Mattis, still in the military.


Thursday, November 26, 2020

Harmeet Dhillon's Common Sense Take On The Kraken

I came across this twitter thread by Harmeet Dhillon at FR. What I've done is paste it in and edit its format for readability--regularized paragraph format and so forth. I've deleted all the references and links. You can get it all by going here

What I came away with from Sidney Powell's Kraken was the conviction that the simple approach is probably the right one--in the short term. I believe there's ample reason to do a painstakingly thorough audit of the entire 2020 election, but the immediate goal has to be to right the specific wrong--undo The Steal. For that proximate, short term, goal a focus on traditional voter fraud will suffice, even though it may miss the bigger picture of election fraud. This takes nothing away from Sidney Powell's Kraken of a complaint--in actual fact, Powell presents a compelling account of just that sort of fraud. The big picture can be addressed--indeed, must be addressed--as we go forward.

This is a strategy that Harmeet Dhillon expresses well:

SWC Takes A First Look At The Kraken

Shipwreckedcrew has taken time out from his Thanksgiving to read Sidney Powell's Georgia complaint and to provide an overview of it. For my money--and, no, I didn't have to pay to read the article--the most interesting part is SWC's explanation of how Powell got her full case into federal court and how that intersects with the Trump legal team's statement that Powell is practicing law on her own. SWC's explanation fits in well with Giuliani's later statement that he and Powell are pursuing "different theories":

Powell filed this action in federal court, but procedurally she is seeking to have the matter heard by the Court both as a federal constitutional challenge — which gets the matter into federal court — but also as an “election contest” under Georgia State law which would be heard by the federal court pursuant to what’s called “ancillary” jurisdiction. When a plaintiff has both state and federal claims that they can assert in a lawsuit, “federal question” jurisdiction is the basis upon which the federal court will hear and resolve the disputes under federal law. Related state law claims can also be determined by the federal court — applying state substantive law and procedures where necessary — pursuant to the court’s “ancillary” jurisdiction so as to allow all the matters to be resolved as part of one proceeding.

This is just a guess, but this may be one reason why the Trump Campaign opted to announce that Powell is working on her own. I believe the Trump campaign will be filing an “election contest” in Georgia state court very shortly, seeking to prove that a number of unqualified voters larger than the margin between the candidates cast ballots for Biden. If the Campaign was working hand-in-hand with Powell when she filed this suit on behalf of the Electors, it is possible that the Court would consider the campaign an “indispensable” party, and allow the defendants to bring them into this action.

Working separately — separate attorneys and separate investigators — is the basis upon which the Campaign will likely file its own action in state court. That, in effect, gives them at least two election contests underway in different courts at the same time, each with different allegations and theories supporting their request for relief.

In other words, it begins to look like coordinated strategies. You can read the rest of SWC's article here:

Sidney Powell Shoves her Chips "All In" With Georgia Complaint Alleging Rigged Election -- Part One

We'll be looking forward to further analysis from SWC.


A Reminder: Kavanaugh's Election Law Warning

Andrea Widburg, in her article that I linked earlier this morning, provides a variety of links to articles that bring us up to date on Trump's challenge to The Steal. One of those links is to an article that Widburg wrote back near the beginning of October. That was, you'll recall, during the post-Ginsburg pre-Justice Amy interregnum at the Scotus.

In The Supreme Court and appellate courts are drawing back from voting madness Widburg summarizes the SCOTUS' handling of an Obama judge's attempted election meddling in Texas. What transpired in that case reinforces the case I made for optimism this morning, regarding Justice Kavanaugh's jurisprudential views as they will impact the election cases that will surely arrive at the SCOTUS. In The New SCOTUS, which dealt with the Free Exercise case in New York, I wrote:

Why is this [Kavanaugh's rejection of Roberts' dissenting opinion] so important and why do I think Kavanaugh's conservative views extend beyond Free Exercise? Because Kavanaugh also dissented from Roberts' laissez faire approach to the PA Supreme Court's rewriting of election law--another 4-4 pre-Justice Amy opinion. Not only did Kavanaugh dissent at that time, but in another opinion very shortly afterwards, regarding the situation in Wisconsin, Kavanaugh went out of his way to bring up the PA case and to emphasize, once again, his disagreement with Roberts. So, for all his dialed down rhetoric, this conservative solidarity may bode well for the Trump challenges. If I had to guess, I'd say that the SCOTUS will ultimately hear these cases and Trump will get a sympathetic hearing from the conservative majority.

Now, read what Widburg wrote a month and a half ago. Note that the SCOTUS was, in fact, in broad agreement, despite Roberts' later fall from grace over PA election law:

Newt Gingrich: Their Sloppiness Will Be Their Undoing

Terrific article by Newt Gingrich: The Thieves Who Stole Our Election Got Sloppy. I hadn't heard about this--everything that went on in Pennsylvania. Gingrich covers a number of illegalities in this article, of which I've selected one very important one. Note that Gingrich gives credit to The Thomas More Society's Amistad Project--which has intervened in Wisconsin and Georgia, so far. It appears that they've been active nationwide, and for some time have anticipated The Steal. They also appear to be working closely with Matt Braynard--as I've previously mentioned. I stress that point because it shows that the Amistad Project isn't just a couple of lawyers winging it. They've got some really solid organizational backup that's feeding them explosive data.

Before we get to Gingrich, I want to interject a bit from Don Surber's Election theft and the Audacity of Evil--highly recommended! Surber is looking at the BIG picture, while Gingrich will provide us with some stunning detail. Surber observes, commenting on Gingich's second paragraph (below):

These people were good enough to plan and execute a heist involving 10 million ballots in 11 key states (the six they swiped plus their failed attempts in Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas; why do you think Fox was so slow in calling those last two states).


To that list I would add Virginia and Minnesota. It's hard to overemphasize what Surber and Gingrich (below) are saying. The Steal was operating on a mammoth scale combining the efforts and huge monetary backing of politicians and private actors.

Surber continues:


I still haven't read the Powell complaint. The reason is because I've been trying to get a handle on the SCOTUS issuance of injunctive relief against Cuomo's draconian and targeted restrictions on the Free Exercise of Religion in New York. This is a big story.

Part of the story is that the Court was evenly divided on the First Amendment issues after Ginsburg's death--with Roberts siding with the liberals against the First Amendment (I say that with a purpose). That had resulted in decisions that left anti religious freedom decisions in place in California, because of the 4-4 split. There's no split any longer with Justice Amy on the Court, and the result appears to be a solid 5-4 conservative majority that is showing a measure of solidarity in opposition to the CJ--who again sided with the liberals.

The opinion itself is somewhat complicated, in that the ruling is PER CURIAM, with no single justice listed as having written it. What everyone is talking about, however, is the way that Gorsuch, in his concurrence, appeared to go out of his way to deride Roberts specifically and the liberals generally for their cavalier attitude toward our First Amendment freedoms.

The Kraken Has Landed

Do Krakens have lairs or nests or dens? Whatever, this Kraken can be found here: CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP. The PDF is a little over a hundred pages and I haven't had time to digest it, so this post will be, or begin as, a bit of a placemarker while I try to get up to speed on a number of things. I'll be republishing several comments regarding this Kraken by Yancey Ward to get discussion started. However, a few preliminary remarks.

For anyone looking for informed discussion of where the Trump challenge is right now, Andrea Widburg has a useful compilation of links and articles at American Thinker this morning (h/t commenter Mike Edmonson): Nine useful articles and data points showcasing 2020's election theft. These articles generally track the discussions we've been having, with the emphasis on the last few days, especially:

What's The Trump Strategy In Wisconsin?

Very Brief Election Challenge Update

Most of the challenges in the various states revolve around similar issues (so far), but their are twists and nuances depending on the statutory and even state constitutional lay of the land in each state. In addition, different plaintiffs have adopted somewhat varying approaches. For example, the filings by the Thomas More Society's Amistad Project (in WI and GA) take aim at Mark Zuckerberg's direct funding of county and municipal government efforts to influence the election--which is illegal in every state that I'm aware of. So, a brief review of the two linked posts may be helpful.

The last time I listened to a Sidney Powell interview--and I believe I've probably listened to virtually all of them re the election--she had refined her narrative regarding the role of remote manipulation of the election somewhat. At least that was my impression, so when I read her complaint I'll be looking at that angle carefully. My recollection of what she said in that interview ran like this: That the election had, indeed, been manipulated remotely but that a concerted effort had been made to conceal these actions by the use of more traditional means. This is what happened during the famous early morning coordinated shutdowns in key swing states. Early accounts of commenters suggest that this is perhaps the weakest part of Powell's complaint. In the big picture, that may not matter because of the strength of the case for more traditional voter fraud. There may be time enough in the future to get to the bottom of the election fraud issue.

I find that theory somewhat compelling. As you'll see, Yancey Ward makes the point that the Trump lead was so large and so difficult to overcome that it was necessary to take extraordinary--and reckless--steps. This presented simple physical obstacles--coming up with such a large number of 'backup' ballots (as it were) in such a short space of time. Powell's theory--as I thought I understood it most recently--is that the steps Yancey describes were needed to back up the remote manipulation. 

All I can say at this point is, compare and see what you think. I agree with Yancey that, at this point, there appears to be an increasingly clear way forward for the Trump challenge in most swing states, thanks in great part to the yeoman work of Matt Braynard. That way forward centers around variations on the fraudulent use of absentee ballots. I emphasize 'variations,' because there were clearly multiple ways to game that technique--including the straightforward failure to count Republican ballots.

Wednesday, November 25, 2020

UPDATED: Very Brief Election Challenge Update

I made the decision that I wouldn't attempt to track all the details of the ongoing election challenges. The fact is that the election laws in each state are unique to that state--and that's especially the case with regard to precisely those provisions that cover the types of voting most susceptible to fraud: absentee and mail in voting. It's impossible for me to keep up with the developments in a truly informed way. However, there have been some positive developments that offer hope for the Trump challenges. Note that not all of these challenges are being conducted by the Trump campaign organization. Some involve the local GOP and some involve private groups or individuals (like Sidney Powell).

Here's a brief rundown of some of the positive developments. I won't claim this is an inclusive list, but here goes.

We saw last night that the Thomas More Society, through its Amistad Project, filed an emergency motion with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Their claim focuses on absentee ballots--but that includes a variety of types of fraud. Fraudulent Biden votes, Republican ballots not counted, etc. However, a notable aspect of this motion is that it draws attention to the use of a huge amount of money from Mark Zuckerberg that funded dodgy Dem GOTV efforts (as well, most likely, as efforts to suppress GOP voting). Again, the details will vary from one state to another. What's important is that the Thomas More people zero in on the fact that the Zuckerberg millions was "gifted" to county and municipal governments. That's illegal in virtually every state in this country. In addition it appears that the Thomas More people are working closely with Brad Maynard's project that is also focusing on absentee voting irregularities. The votes involved would easily flip Wisconsin to Trump, and Thomas More appears to have Wisconsin law--and its Supreme Court--on its side.

Late today the Thomas More Society filed a similar motion in Georgia. The focus once again is on Zuckerberg's millions flowing, illegally, to county and municipal governments. As in Wisconsin, the claim is that large numbers of Biden votes were fraudulently cast, and that "tens of thousands" of Trump votes were not counted. I haven't seen the full filing, but it looks generally similar to the Wisconsin motion and I assume that, once again, they're working closely with Brad Maynard. Here's a video of Phill Kline, explaining what's up with Zuckerberg. The optics of Phill Kline fronting for the Amistad Project isnt the best. Still, this looks promising.

This article includes a video of another dodgy aspect of the Georgia election, as presented by a private internet researcher. It all adds up.

FBI Agents Association To Honor Fauci

They're giving him their "Distinguished Service Award." Read about it here. Not The Onion. And, No, I don't belong.

“We are honored to present our highest award to Dr. Fauci and thrilled that Director Wray will join us and speak ..." yada yada yada.


Did Parents Really Vote To Make Their Kids Dumber?

Below is a paste job from Don Surber, which is mostly a paste job from Weasel Zippers, which is almost entirely a paste job from the WaPo.

Here's my election related point. 

What you're expected to believe is:

1. These results of school shutdowns were somehow unforeseeable;

2. By November 4 parents had somehow not caught on to the ongoing disaster; and

3. They voted for a continuation of these policies.

I'm just not buying any of that. To me, you can add the education issue to the overall common sense argument that there's no way that this election was not RIGGED. Yes, people are gullible, but parents of school age children can't possibly be THAT gullible. Which suggests that a reckoning awaits when people finally catch on to the fact that, not only has the lockdown policy been wrongheaded and unjustified, but the entire Covid Hoax was no more than a follow on to the failed Global Warming hoax.

Of course, don't expect total truth from a WaPo story. They start out telling you that "those with disabilities and English-language learners" are the students who have been hardest hit. But later we read that "Middle-schoolers reported an overall 300% increase in F’s, while high-schoolers reported a 50% increase." Excuse me. Those percentages can't possibly be accounted for just by "those with disabilities and English-language learners." There's more to that story.


ITEM 10: Via Weasel Zippers, the Washington Post reported, "Online learning is causing a serious drop in academic achievement in Virginia’s largest school system, according to a Fairfax County Public Schools study, and the most vulnerable students — those with disabilities and English-language learners — are struggling the most.

"Between the last academic year and this one, which for most students is taking place remotely, the percentage of F’s earned by middle school and high school students jumped from 6% of all grades to 11% — representing an overall increase of 83% from 2019 to 2020. Younger students were more seriously affected than older ones: Middle-schoolers reported an overall 300% increase in F’s, while high-schoolers reported a 50% increase.

"The effects were particularly pronounced among students with disabilities, who saw their percentage of F’s increase by 111% to account for nearly 20% of all grades achieved, and among children for whom English is a second language: Their percentage of F’s rose by 106% to account for 35 percent of all grades achieved."

No problem. They'll all get diplomas and get into the best schools. F is for effort, right?



Recommended Thanksgiving Reading--Because Covid!

For the past week various articles have appeared, working off a video presentation given by Dr. Michael Yeadon. These two examples of such articles will give you some idea of their overall tenor:

"Pandemic is Over" - Former Pfizer Chief Science Officer Says "Second Wave" Faked On False-Positive COVID Tests

Closings & Lockdowns Couldn't Have Been More Pointless.

These are both very worthwhile articles, however I've found a transcript of the actual Yeadon video (which is a half hour long) and I'm going to paste it in here, simply because the video presentation seemed to me to be sufficiently dense as to make it difficult to absorb in that format. You can view the video by following the link at the end of this paragraph, but with this transcript i  hand you can also read and reread and ponder the significance of it all. It comes courtesy of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).

Now, while this is a presentation by a doctor and researcher, it's not just about medicine. Yeadon is concerned for the political health of our societies. He's concerned at the ready acceptance of ignorant opinions, and ready propagation--usualy by government officials, as he points out--of ignorant opinions. He concludes by suggesting that we, as a society, are at the edge of a precipice. That precipice, if we go over it, will lead to servitude. Which is what the Great Reset is about, and it's what the Great Steal is intended to lead to.

The first thing you'll want to know is: Just who is Michael Yeadon, and why should I read him instead of simply watching the latest interview babblings of our world historical scientific genius Tony Fauci? So, this is Michael Yeadon, and why you should pay attention to what he's saying:

Have A Pavel Morozov Thanksgiving!

Pavel Morozov, as you may know, was the Young Pioneer schoolboy in the Stalinist USSR who supposedly ratted out his father for planning to help sabotage the Glorious Revolution of Father Stalin. Modern research suggests the whole story was invented, but that's not the point. We're all cultural Marxists now, so we know that history is an invention of the oppressive patriarchy--or something or other--and it's the narrative that counts. And so Pavel became a hero of The Revolution, a martyr to The Cause. He was held up to school children as a model, who were urged to follow in his footsteps and rat out reactionary parents and relatives so that they could experience "the highest measure of social defense". Canceling by firing squad. 

The Republican governor of Vermont, Phil Scott, must have internalized the Pavel Morozov story at some point in his past--or maybe this is simply the natural mindset of our political class, irrespective of party. When I was a kid being taught by the nuns, the Pavel Morozov story was held up to us as the ultimate depravity of Red Marxism--kids spying on and betraying their parents to oppressive authorities! But we learn today that that's precisely the behavior and mindset that Scott wants to encourage in Vermont juveniles:

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

UPDATED: What's The Trump Strategy In Wisconsin?

Shipwreckedcrew has detailed article up that examines the Trump team strategy in Wisconsin, where Biden supposedly has a 43K vote lead out of 3.2 million total votes:

Trump Campaign Focusing on Unlawful Use of Absentee Ballot Process to Avoid Wisconsin ID Requirement

What makes election law so complicated is that Congress has never exercised its constitutional authority to legislate in any comprehensive manner--to provide us with uniform election laws on a national basis. So, while it may come as no surprise to learn that the Trump campaign is focusing on absentee ballots, there are inevitable twists in Wisconsin law that make this effort unique. SWC goes through it all.

Here's the essence of what matters in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin it's relatively easy to register to vote without presenting a photo ID. HOWEVER, it's not so easy to apply for an absentee ballot without presenting a photo ID. MOREOVER, Wisconsin law explicitly states that absentee voting is a privilege, that all procedures are mandatory--they must be followed for the purpose of avoiding fraud--and that failure to comply invalidates the ballot in question.

With that in mind, the way you can vote absentee in Wisconsin while avoiding the normal requirement to provide a photo ID is to self-designate as being “indefinitely confined by age, physical illness, or infirmity, or is disabled for an indefinite period of time.” (We covered this in an earlier post.) Naturally, the county clerks in ultra Left Dane and Milwaukee counties, in the leadup to the election, publicly encouraged people to apply for absentee ballots for the express purpose of avoiding the photo ID requirement. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin ordered the clerks to knock it off--slapping an injunction on them. But of course the harm was already done and no other relief was requested. 

SWC believes that it's that class of absentee ballots that the Wisconsin recount is targeting. The recount will seek to lower the margin, and then the absentee ballots will be targeted for those that evaded the photo ID requirement by self designating as indefinitely confined.

My understanding, and I can't find the link right now, is that there was a record number of such ballots cast. The likelihood of fraud is high, and the margin is on the low side by comparison.

UPDATE: The Thomas More Society (a Catholic legal organization) has filed an emergency petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The petition targets exactly that class of ballots described above--absentee ballots requested by persons "self designating" as "indefinitely confined"--a designation which allows those persons to evade the requirement to submit a photo ID. You can read the petition here. You can also read a fairly good account here.

Here are two paragraphs from the petition that provide some of the more interesting details. You'll see the clear reference to the intent to circumvent the photo ID requirement:

2. A systematic effort was lunched in Wisconsin, using millions of dollars in private money sourced to Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook billionaire to illegally circumvent Wisconsin absentee voting laws, including primarily one absentee voting law which is the sole exception to Wisconsin‘ photo TD law, to cast tens of thousands of illegal absentee ballots.

3... As set forth below, the Zuckerberg—funded private organization, the Center for Technology and Civic Lie, gifted over $6,000,000 to the Cities of Racine, Kenosha, Green Bay, Madison and Milwaukee, all Democrat Party strongholds, in order for those cites to facilitate the use of absentee voting in violation of Wisconsin law.

Later in the petition (#51, 56) the Thomas More Society argues that this "gift" in fact violates Wisconsin law, in that Wisconsin cities and counties--which are created by Wisconsin statutory law--are only allowed to take in revenue from taxes and various types of fees and state grants. NOT "gifts" from billionaire activists.

Then (#68) the Thomas More Society points out that the agreement that these cities and counties entered into (previously described in the petition) violated Wisconsin law because it the agreement had the explicit intent to encourage absentee voting. In fact, however, Wisconsin law explicitly seeks to prevent such encouragement:

The legislature finds that the privilege of voting by absentee ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent the potential for Fraud or abuse; to prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election; to prevent undue influence on an absent elector to vote for or against a candidate or to cast a particular vote in a referendum; or other similar abuses.

They then go on to argue (D. #84ff) that Jefferson and Dane counties illegally encouraged voters to vote absent by appealing to Covid--when in fact Covid does not render these people "indefinitely confined" for purposes of Wisconsin law. It was simply a ploy to avoid the photo ID requirement--which strongly suggests fraud.

There's a lot more technical argumentation, but here's the bottom line:

IV. — The government data report and estimates support that the election result is void.

15. Petitioners have submitted the government data report of their expert Matthew Braynard.

116. — The results show that the election result is void because of illegal votes counted, legal votes not counted, counting errors and election official illegalities.

117, — The estimate of ballots requested in the name of a registered Republican by someone other than that person is 14,426.

118. — The estimate of Republican ballots that the requester returned but were not counted is 12,071.

19. The total of these two categories is 26,497—enough to change the election result.

120. — Further, the estimate of persons who voted where they did not reside is 26,673.

121. —The estimate of electors who avoided Wisconsin Voter ID laws by voting absentee as an indefinitely confined" elector and were not indefinitely confined is 96,437.

122. The estimate of out of state residents voting in Wisconsin is 6,966.

123. — The estimate of people double voting in Wisconsin is 234.

124, — The total, including all categories, is 156,807—enough to change the election result.

Seems like rampant fraud to me.

Trump Clarifies--Somewhat

It appears that President Trump himself is still on the Dominion case--it's not just about absentee ballots and technical violations of voting laws:

Back on Saturday, Trump also retweeted a three part report on Dominion that ran on OANN. The report is actually quite interesting and becomes especially so in the second and third parts. For example, one very precise explanation for how there could be vote 'dumps' that were 138K for Biden and 0 for Trump is offered by an expert consultant. The report also digs into the background of top Dominion employees--including the now somewhat notorious Antifa supporter, Eric Coomer (sorry for embedding Part 2 twice):

Will A Biden Presidency Be Most Corrupt Ever? Don't Doubt It!

To be honest, I haven't even been following the "appointments" that "Biden" is making. It's too depressing. But from the names I've seen in passing it's clear that the Dems are about to start burying all bodies that have been disinterred during the past few years--while Grassley and Johnson go through their usual ritual motions.

Here's an example:

After joining Burisma, Hunter Biden requested meetings with Antony Blinken: State Dept. emails

President-elect Joe Biden nominated Blinken for secretary of state

New Secretary of State pick Antony Blinken has a long-standing relationship with President-elect Joe Biden going back to their days in the Obama administration, but State Department emails revealed that during that time Blinken appeared to have made a connection with Hunter Biden as well.

In the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, Hunter Biden was the subject of reports about business dealings in Ukraine and China and possible links to his father. Records show that the younger Biden also had ties to Blinken, having scheduled meetings with him while he was on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma and Blinken was deputy secretary of state.

"Have a few minutes next week to grab a cup of coffee? I know you are impossibly busy, but would like to get your advice on a couple of things," Hunter Biden said in a May 22, 2015 email to Blinken that the State Department released in 2019, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request.

"Absolutely," Blinken replied. Several emails followed discussing logistics. A separate email from Blinken's assistant on May 27, 2015, listed his schedule for that day. It included a meeting with Hunter Biden set for 3:30 p.m.

Absolutely! What's a busy Deputy Secretary of State in office for, if not to provide "advice on a couple of things" to the VPOTUS' crackhead sex fiend son? And how would that VPOTUS--now claiming to be POTUS elect--possibly say no to Blinken if Blinken asked for the SoS spot?

Biden, Inc.? You're joking, right? Ukraine? China? Down the memory hole!

Trumpers Spotted At Harvard!

That's according to the Harvard Crimson: A Look into the Lives of Conservative Students on Campus. Follow the link if you want a vicarious look into the lives of conservative students on the Harvard campus. However, what interests me is the more speculative notion that, small as the conservative minority at Harvard may be, doesn't that make you wonder about what was going on across the Fruited Plain--and especially in those disputed "swing" portions of it? 

The Crimson discovered--to its shock and dismay--that 7.1% of incoming students this year were willing to state that they intended to vote for Trump. Moreover, they acknowledged that the "shy Trump supporter" factor may have been in play. We are talking about a bastion of Left liberalism--the prestige educational belly of that particular beast, if you will. To me, this is one more suggestion of just how very improbable a supposed Biden victory is. Chalk it up alongside outdrawing Obama, doing worse than Hillary in all metro areas--except, so very conveniently, in Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Phoenix.

Despite nearly half of the country voting for President Donald J. Trump, 90 percent of incoming students in the class of 2024 reported they would vote for Joseph R. Biden Jr., compared to just 7.1 percent for Trump, according to a fall 2020 Crimson survey. In 2012, meanwhile, a Crimson straw poll of students found a higher percentage — 17 percent — supported Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Additionally, in The Crimson's freshman survey, only 7.4 percent of the current freshman class identified as somewhat to very conservative, a marked drop even from the 12.4 percent of incoming students for the class of 2023.

Yet the ever-shrinking coalition of conservative students on campus are not backing down. In 2020, the Harvard Republicans endorsed Trump for president, citing his commitment to protecting “American traditions” and preserving the country’s “moral order.” That marked a departure from 2016, when the group gained national attention for rejecting then-candidate Trump, the first time in the Harvard Republicans' 128-year history that it had declined to endorse the party’s nominee.

Despite that shift, multiple members of the club in interviews for this piece quickly grew hesitant to divulge their views on the president, even after speaking at length about their political positions. For many, that hesitance reflects what they believe is a culture on campus among students and faculty to silence and marginalize conservatives.

Life on campus? A brief excerpt from the much longer article:

“It's kind of treated as, if you're conservative, then that means you've been tricked into doing something and you're just ignorant and don't understand how the world works,” she said. “It's not treated rather as something that you've deliberated about and come to decide on your own terms.”

Benjamin R. Paris ’21 similarly said he feels there has been a tendency to disregard more conservative viewpoints as illegitimate.


“The idea is not, anymore, ‘You are wrong,’ but instead, ‘You are not actually worthy of talking,’” he added.

Paris said he specifically resents what he perceives as an unfair stigma against religious beliefs influencing political decision-making.

“It’s that the progressives or the left-of-center in general are allowed to bring their own kind of secular fit into the room,” he added. “But we are being asked to leave our beliefs at the door.”

Sadl, it probably won't get better in the real world after graduation, judging by Dems' open plans to cancel all but themselves in public--and even increasingly private--life.

Rudy Clarifies

Per Breitbart (and h/t Thomas Lifson at AmThinker I am having a nightmare… and I can’t wake upI).

Rudy Giuliani on Break with Sidney Powell: ‘We’re Pursuing Two Different Theories’

In other words, it appears Jenna Ellis bungled the statement of Powell's status. There's no break, in the true sense. Rather, according to Rudy--and his explanation appears to fit the known facts regarding Powell's funding and representations. There is no criticism of Powell expressed or implied in what Giuliani says.

Since the Breitbart story is really just a transcript from Giuliani's appearance, I'll include it all:

Monday, November 23, 2020

Good New, Bad News

Good News? "Republicans" should do well in 2022.

Bad News?

Yep. He counts as a Republican, too.

Georgia In Play?

Yes, of course it is. But just minutes ago Shipwreckedcrew came out with a very detailed analysis of the situation there that puts flesh on gut feelings. His conclusion?

The Trump Campaign Has A Very Real Chance To Overturn The Election Result in Georgia

I won't repeat all the details, but the basis for this challenge comes down to the issue of hanky panky with absentee ballots--which Matt Braynard is beginning to uncover. In Georgia 1,322,529 ballots were cast, with a margin of only about 12,500 votes. The suspicion is that there's a fair degree of correspondence between those absentee ballots and the nearly 1 million new voter registrations between 2018 and 2020. Braynard has been discovering that significant numbers of those registrations come back to non-residential addresses (PO boxes in particular, or mail drop sites at FedEx or UPS)--which is illegal in Georgia.

All of these state challenges are highly specific to each state, due to the many variances in state election laws. Anyone with an interest in Georgia is highly recommended to read this very informative article.