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:

Ok, I’ve read the lawsuit filed by Sidney Powell’s organization. It contains many allegations familiar to those following these legal challenges, with two big themes:

1) numerous irregularities in vote-counting based on ad hoc law/procedure changes, including

putting ballots in the wrong stacks en masse, 

pre-printed ballots that were “pristine” and unlined; 

blocking Republican observers from vote-tabulation tables; 

counting votes after the so-called “pipe burst” election night even though there were no Rep. observers, 

and more ... 

The second big theme is that the Dominion voting machines are easily hackable and experts have written scripts to show how one can manually manipulate vote tallies, alter settings so as to put more ballots into a “question” pile and then just delete them.

These are serious allegations, and maybe the evidence (some of it filed and some of it under seal provisionally) will persuade. Either of these big themes would be enough to change the election results given the narrow margin for Biden. 

To me, the easiest way to reach that goal is something much simpler, alleged in the complaint at para. 121. Thousands of specific, identifiable voters, cast ballots after they moved out of state as evidenced in their registration in a national database, and may even have cast votes in their new states also — which can easily be checked against the other state’s records. This accounts for thousands of votes. 

The other category, which @MattBraynard has researched & documented, is thousands of identifiable, specific registrations at fraudulent addresses such as P.O. Boxes, non-residential, etc. — These seem to be specific and of a sufficient volume that their disqualification would affect the outcome of the election. I think this simple tack - much easier to grasp and prove than the more complicated theories — is compelling. 

To critics who say this is too late, it really isn’t. How are you supposed to allege that someone cast a ballot from a fraudulent registration address or after moving, before the election? This is something that can only be checked after the votes are cast and tallied, particularly where last-minute registrations are permitted by increasingly lax voter registration policies pushed by Democrats, followed by no signature verification or other safeguards, as the lawsuit alleges.

I think these “Braynard” allegations have legs, and should be pursued aggressively. A court should want to know which thousands of specific, identifiable people illegally cast ballots in Georgia. I hope the federal court allows inquiry into this low-tech challenge even if it does not bite on the more expert-and statistically-based theories. There’s time to get this right, and we must.  — Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) November 26, 2020


  1. Back when I used to watch Fox before the election, Dhillon was a regular on one of the prime time opinion shows; Ingraham's I think, but possibly Hannity's. Seems like she is a lawyer from California and comes across as reserved but well prepared. If she is now siding with the anti-Biden wing and for the election integrity wing, I wonder if her invite from Fox has been rescinded now that Fox has gone liberal establishment crazy.


    1. She and Ingraham were classmates @ Dartmouth, IIRC.

    2. Harmeet is a very well-brought-up, very well-educated lady. There aren’t many ladies around these days so I guess some view them as “reserved”. From her bio:

      Harmeet Kaur Dhillon (born 1969) is an American lawyer and Republican Party official. She is the former vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party, and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California. She is the founder of a law practice called Dhillon Law Group Inc.

      You can read more about her here. She is a force in California Republican politiics and nationally as well, and promises to be more in the future. A bright light to California republicans. As far as I know she is still a guest on Fox and Fox Business.

    3. And Harmeet Dhillon and Ron Coleman are partners in law office:
      Ron Coleman

  2. I hope that this doesn't mean postponing pursuit of the two big themes, and concentration instead only on "retail" issues, like out of state, or fraudulent, registration addresses.

    1. Both can and should be pursued simultaneously. I'm just saying that with the time constraints that we have, the emphasis at this point in time has to be on getting the true results of the election, and the most efficient path to that result is probably as Dhillon--and Yancey--suggest.

    2. @ mark

      Yes, and it may be that another purpose of Powell's suits is to get enough of the election fraud/foreign interference issues out in public to start building pressure for eventual criminal prosecutions by DOJ once Trump is sworn in and gets a better grip on the dept and FBI. Both Powell and Wood are big picture people intensely interested in revealing the truth and bringing these criminals to justice. They both say this repeatedly on their social media posts. The prosecutions implicated by Powell's allegations are so sweeping it boggles the mind. It will take years and enormous willpower to see it through. A Powell or Wood DOJ would make it happen if Barr bows out after January.

    3. Take this to the bank--there will never be a Powell or Wood DoJ.

    4. Ah well...we will just have to see how it plays out with Barr then. He may want to stick around to try to reform DOJ and FBI, you think?

    5. I suspect, that in the emphasis on "getting the true results of the election", this should much include Rudy's simple points, about the many thousands of votes added to Biden's totals, in the early hours of 4 Nov.

  3. They just need the right to discovery on the absentee signatures. I will just about bet the farm that the documentation will be found to not exist for up to 100K ballots in Georgia, 150K in Wisconsin, 200K in Michigan, and 700K in Pennsylvania. Also, it probably won't be found on at least 50K in Nevada and Arizona, and probably between 25K and 100K in the the other fifty states.

    1. I suspect you're right. Never existed or was hurriedly destroyed--as is alleged in several states already.

  4. The accuracy of the vote and the means whereby the accuracy is challenged are certainly the heart of Powell suits.

    But, what is interesting to me is the suit does not simply challenge the accuracy of the vote, it charges (as I understand it) the respective Governors and other State Officials with violations of State, Federal and Constitutional law.

    In short, this is not just an abstract vote count methodology issue; it is ‘personal’. Seemingly, the Governors and State Official’s will have to account for their behavior.

    While the suit is Civil, doesn’t it imply criminal intent?

    1. What Powell claims is a failure to do their duty as prescribed by law. Criminal intent requires a crime that would cover that failure--federal or state. On the federal side I would expect that to be covered by a civil rights violation. Each state could have separate provisions of one sort or another. But criminal intent isn't implied--it has to be proven.

    2. Thank you for your informed reply. I was nodding my head yes until the last sentence:

      “Criminal intent isn’t implied –it has to be proven.”

      What I was (subjectively with no law education) ‘suggesting’ is that there are aspects of the Powell’s civil charges that seem to ‘implying’ that a case for ‘criminal intent’ based charges may be warranted.

      Interestingly, Powell in her book ‘Justice Lies’ describes in detail how ‘criminal intent’ ultimately rest with the Judge’s decision on how to charge the jury. In the famous Enron Arthur Anderson case, Powell writes:

      “… [in] crucial jury instruction that Judge Harmon gave at the request of the [Federal prosecuting] task force. She took out the most important element of any crime—the intent to commit one.”

      “Judge Harmon, however, had let the task force persuade her to remove the language from the instruction that made the case a criminal one instead of a civil one. She had removed criminal intent.
      (p. 41)

    3. I understood your 'intent', Tom. I just wanted to be clear on how this works. Or, is supposed to work. So ...

      'Criminal intent' does NOT ultimately rest with the jury instructions by the judge--except in a practical courtroom sense--and Powell would not want to be quoted to that effect. The judge issues instructions to the jury that explain the law. Those instructions are not simply adlibbed by judges--there are standard instructions to be used. In the incident Powell describes what the judge did was issue erroneous instructions, which is grounds for appeal.

    4. You write:
      Criminal intent' does NOT ultimately rest with the jury instructions by the judge

      “In the incident Powell describes what the judge did was issue erroneous instructions, which is grounds for appeal.

      YES! And it was up held on Appeal.
      Powell (who not the defendant’s attorney but close to the case) was shocked by both the behavior of the Judges and the decision. (Justice Lies p. 45)

      Powell is quotable: she wrote the book.

    5. I have no doubt she was shocked--because the behavior was shocking. Such discretion--making law rather than following law--doesn't rest with judges. Even if they get away with it at times.

    6. At least SCotUS unanimously overturned Andersen's conviction.
      But, how much play did the MSM give to that result?
      And, how many of our leaders did boo, to try to prevent repeats of that result?

  5. I advise you to stop referring to websites by initials such as FR and GP.

    I didn't know what FR is, and now that I have gone to the Twitter page to find out, I still don't know what FR is.

    Spell any webpage's name out, at least the first time you mention the webpage.

  6. The most compelling accusation I have seen so far is that 100% of the military ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, were cast for Biden. I assume that "military ballots" means absentee ballots cast by military members stationed abroad.

    That particular accusation must be investigated and explained.

  7. If the election is transferred from the Electoral College to the US House of Representatives, then the investigation can last until January 20, and the investigation will be managed by the House's Democrat majority leaders.

    1. Inasmuch as the fraudulent voting could also affect down ticket races, do we really know that the Democrats would still be in the majority in the House?

    2. Insofar as the investigation will be managed by the House's Democrat majority leaders, will this enable the House brass to easily sabotage such a probe, or can DJT get ways to forestall this, e.g. by getting Barr to pick an SC?

    3. Are we talking about “investigation” or the contingent election of the President and Vice President in the House? I may have gotten lost in the weeds...

    4. Insofar as the investigation will be managed by the House's Democrat majority leaders, will this enable the House brass to easily sabotage such a probe ?

      The Democrat majority will have to conduct the investigation with reasonable fairness, because the House Republicans can win the election in the House.

    5. "because the House Republicans can win the election in the House."
      You mean, of PotUS?
      That's enough, to move them to conduct the investigation with reasonable fairness?
      I don't buy that at all.

  8. May I add some to the common sense take?

    Like Dhillon I'm focusing more on the 'retail' voter fraud allegations, as opposed to the 'wholesale' election fraud issues, although I would say that on several levels they overlap. And I don't mean to minimize the wholesale issues...or the constitutional issues.

    But on the retail level, it seems to me there are two kinds of 'voter' fraud: one, where election officials violated applicable rules, laws and constitutional restrictions to allow nominally eligible voters to vote. An example might be a ballot improperly filled in (for example, lacking a date or a signature) by an eligible voter which election officials decide to accept, because, you know, she tried and there's covid, etc.

    The second category is where the 'voter' is simply not eligible to vote or the vote is patently fraudulent. This category includes voters who do not meet state residence requirements (and lie about it) or are otherwise not eligible to vote (such as felons and non-citizens), who are dead, who are imaginary, who have already voted, or who did not fill in or submit the ballot themselves.

    While I believe both categories of vote (one and two above) are illegal, I would have thought that if plaintiffs can show more votes in the second category than the Biden margin it would be a slam dunk for a court to reverse the result.

    And the Dems will have a much harder time complaining (rioting?) about category two votes being excluded than category one votes.

    1. minor quibble: the Dems will not have a hard time rioting.

    2. I agree mistcr. Minor quibble, not "Dems" left wing activist totalitarian shock troops.